Author Topic: NEW CALIBER FOR OUR SOLDIERS???????? (Read 2027 times)

S.S. · « **on:** February 03, 2003, 10:31:11 AM »

I am hearing rumors, but no hard evidence!
Has anyone else heard ANYTHING about Uncle
Sam wanting a BETTER BULLET for his fighting folks!!!
I know the 1911 is getting a workout again by some of the
troops in Afghanistan! And some of the Special Ops.
folks are using M-14's again. It will "REACH" further up the cliffs
than the Mattel Toy Will !! As I understand it, The 5.56 X 45
is not faring well against fanatical Taliban!

John Traveler · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2003, 11:31:53 AM »

Hi, S. Sumner!

I try keep close contact with some knowledgeable active duty military folks in my line of work, and they (last month) reported no really new weapons developments.

The US Marines are using some reworked M14 sniper rifles in the Afghan operation. What I heard was that the Marine Corp armorers still have access to many thousands of war-reserve M14's in storage, and this project was conceived as a low-cost alternative to replacing Remington M700 bolt-action sniper rifles.

There have been numerous "war story" reports of failures to stop from both the 5.56 NATO and the 9mm NATO service weapons in closeup fighting. Some are documented failures, and others are word-of-mouth. Whichever they are, the consensus is that the two NATO calibers are too well entrenched (logistic support) to be replaced in the near future.

ibfestus · « **Reply #2 on:** February 04, 2003, 03:41:01 AM »

I find the contradictions in stories I hear about the 5.56 NATO (.223) to be borderline funny. (it would be over the border were it not so serious) On one hand I hear about a 17 year old untrained "sniper" who fires 13 rounds and has 10 kills and 3 severely wounded. On the other hand I hear where trained professional soldiers and marines can't kill anything with the same round. I hear about guys who are shot in the arm with one round dying because of the great trauma inflicted, and at the same time I hear about some woman in Somalia who survived 12 hits. I hear the 5.56 won't shoot much more than 300 meters and we are simply outgunned by our opponents who are using 7.62X39 AK's. I hear that Bushmaster is being sued because they produce a product that is too "high-powered" to be used by civilians and on the other hand.... :-D

Mikey · « **Reply #3 on:** February 04, 2003, 06:03:09 AM »

Guys: here is what I have heard:

(1) The 5.56x45mm experiences battlefield failure to stop a determined enemy without multiple hits. (Keep in mind though that the enemy on the battlefiled is not the innocent civilian taken by surprise in ambush. The M-16 with it's 62 grain SS-109 bullet will reach and penetrate a helmet to 7 - 800 meters.)

(2) some thought has been given to the development of a 6.5x45mm cartridge to possibly replace the 5.56x45mm round. The 6.5, whether from a Carcano, a Swede or an Arisaka, does the job.

(3) I would assume that from a gas operated M-16 type rifle, a 6.5x45mm round would be near as fast and effective as the 6.5 Swede, and that would be good enough for me.

(4) I think we may hear more about this in the future.

(5) No debate on the 9mm. SAS uses two man teams with one double tap per man - that's 4 rounds of 9mm per target. I would imagine how nervous a GI would get if he had to continually hit his opponent numerous times with his 9mm during close combat. Hence, the need for large capacity magazines. The same concern involves the 5.56 - if you have a 30 round magazine but have to hit each opponent 3 times, your stuff is getting might weak mighty quick when facing a large force of advancing enemy.

During WWII, the German 9mms were known to penetrate through and through, even with some heart shots, and the soldier lived to tell about it. Credence was given to the British 38-200 - big, heavy and slow versus skinny, light and quick, as that is the basis for the effectiveness of the 45.

IMHO. Mikey.

kevin.303 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 04, 2003, 06:12:18 AM »

i had thought that your armed forces had dropped the 5.56. i have a buddy in the reserves and while the canadian army uses american made 16's, they are the standerd 7.62 NATO round. many older folks in this country who saw service in the fifties and sixties have lamented the passing of the Lee-Enfield and many think that it was a better gun then we arecurrently using. i guess thats the kinda like some of your vets and thier passion for the M1 garand.

John Traveler · « **Reply #5 on:** February 04, 2003, 05:53:23 PM »

Negative on that last info!

I work extensively with Canadian Army units and they are equipped as follows:

The Canadian Forces use the US M16 design C7 service rifle, but it is/was made by Demaco in Ontario, Canada. It and the C9 squad automatic weapon (designed by FN Belgium) are both 5.56x45mm NATO standard, same as the US M16A2/M4 rifles.

None of these weapons are in 7.62x51mm NATO. The last Canadian service weapon to still use 7.62 NATO are the C6 series (FN MAG 58) machine guns and the Parker-Hale made mauser action sniper rifles.

securitysix · « **Reply #6 on:** February 05, 2003, 05:45:11 AM »

First, I think 7.62x51mm NATO might be a wee bit long for the M-16 mag in the first place.

Second, the new round you guys are talking about is supposed to be a 6.8x47mm round (sounds like a 6.8mm TCU to me) with about a 100 gr. bullet, which will allow it to be used on current issue M-16s by simply changing the upper assembly. It should (supposedly) be able to use the same mags as the 5.56x45mm round. I've gotten most of this from the AR15 forums. The theory over there is that it will be special issue for a good long while due to issues with tooling up for mass ammo and rifle production.

S.B. · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2003, 02:28:18 PM »

S.Summer, there is a post on the CSP site under the service pistol header about the .45 the Corp is working on and what parts have been replaced.

kevin.303 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2003, 05:55:15 AM »

sorry about the false info. my knowledge of military weapons gets a little fuzzy after 1965. :oops:

dragthewaters · « **Reply #9 on:** March 05, 2003, 03:59:52 PM »

ok i am going to stray off a little but do we need to change?, the .223 is a good bullet, not in power as much as it is light to carry and low recoil, but what about what happens after it enters the body? tht is where the .223 shows all of its ability, a .223's bullet fragments into 2 peices when it enters the body, this makes a very large permanant cavity in the body, that means there will be a lot of bleeding, and fast too, in vietnam soldiers reported not instant deaths, but they would find a dead soldier with a huge puddle of blood, but they would have moved only a couple feet.
so it may not knock a man down instantly like a 30-06, but how many bullets od 30-06 can a man carry? not near as much as a .223 round that does quite a bit of damage. now for long distance, the .223 isnt very good, its just not heavy enough to carry long distances, but how often do you need to make an incredibly long shot?, maybe they need to find a bullet that is inbetween, somthing that has the quality's of both bullets, but could it been the .223 has had a bad rep from the start too? Every bullet is going to have a flaw, the bullets dont hit and the enemy falls without any movement at all, unless the nervous system is hit directly in the correct spot, there is not will be no perfect bullet, better than .223, maybe/probably? i dont know, the only way is to try it in the field

And I am pretty sure that mattel toys did not make those early m-16's they were "invented" i guess you would say, by Eugene Stoner, who at the time worked for armalite, and the manufacturing rights were bought by colt, and it is somewhat true because mattel did make the grips, and slodiers seen that it said mattel on it, and thought that the entire rifle was made by mattel,"that probably worried tham"

Jack Crevalle · « **Reply #10 on:** March 06, 2003, 01:20:30 AM »

After reading, "One Shot - One Kill" by Sasser and Roberts, I wonder how much of the 5.6's reputation came from poor training. In their book, they give statisitics for how many rounds it took to kill one enemy soldier in each war from, I believe, the civil war through Vietnam. The numbers go up by an order of magnitude until they reach 200,000 rounds per one enemy death in Vietnam. It might be easy to blame this on the 5.6 but the book gives anecdotal evidence that it was poor marksmanship training. They give the example of a school conducted to identify potential marksmen for sniper training. The story goes that regular infantrymen were not trained in traditional slow, controlled, or even aimed fire at this time but were taught some technique called "quick kill" or something of that nature. This was a philosophy of simply trying to spray massive amounts of ammunition in your enemy's direction on full automatic as quickly as you could. To make the point that the average infantryman was not even trained in aiming his rifle at this time, they give the example of one soldier who showed up for this culling of marksmen with an M16 that did not have a front sight.

dragthewaters · « **Reply #11 on:** March 06, 2003, 01:38:02 AM »

yeah good book, i havent finished it yet, but isn't it somewhere like 500,000! shots per enemy kill?, i will check later, but i sniper gets 1.3 shots for every enemy kill

1911crazy · « **Reply #12 on:** March 06, 2003, 03:35:29 AM »

Its not their ak's that are making long shots, I remember seeing a documentury before the war in '91 they showed the sand fleas with m91 mosin's they had, they were up on the ridges out of range of the russians taking them apart with long distance shots yes old mosin's this is why the russians lost so many guys the mosin's filled their body bags. You have to know this was going to be a problem right away for the M16's ahead of time?? I guess every group should have a couple of m14's or one guy with sniper capability for long range action? Time to regroup, rethink, then react the M16 never impressed me. My 'nam buddies always complained about giving up the m14's its been down hill ever since. BigBill

S.B. · « **Reply #13 on:** March 06, 2003, 03:39:53 AM »

Security Six, you've got things a little backwards. The first assault weapon that Stoner came up with was not the AR-15, but the AR-10. Which was in 7.62 Nato. And by the way, it had a lot of the features that the military wanted in the M-16A2, and that were the same reason they turned it down for use instead of the M14's. And if you'll follow the military history instead of the popular gun rags, you'll see that the smaller caliber was wanted by the military for the jungle fighting( it's intended purpose) of VietNam. In my opinion, most people who push the M16 family aren't being logical in trying to use it in every theater on earth, it's fine for spray and prey situations, but lacks in distance killing power, that is inherent in the 7.62 Nato family or guns. Witness the militarys requests for the M14's in Afaganastan? Tne M16 is a fine weapon, in it's place, but not everywhere. Use the right tool for the job.

John Traveler · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2003, 04:55:12 AM »

Ah, yes! The old 7.62mm vs 5.56mm controversy surfaces again!

Gentlemen, The US Military Establishment spent many man-hours, years or study, and tens of millions of dollars thoroughly researching the pros and cons of adopting the 5.56x45mm NATO and 9x19mm NATO calibers.

The simple fact is that 5.56mm NATO offers much more than 7.62mm NATO infantry weapons do. Namely:

1. 5.56mm ammunition takes up less than half the weight and space that the equivalent amount of 7.62mm ammo does. The individual solder's firepower has been greatly increased.

2. Killing and wounding potential are only slightly related to incapacitation capability. The military regards incapacitation of an enemy soldier as being more important than simply killing him. It takes two or more soldiers to carry or care for one badly wounded man. That drains enemy resources in warfighting more than simply killing an enemy soldier.

3. The penetration and wind drift characteristics of the current 5.56mm ammunition exceeds that of the 7.62mm ball ammo. It is greatly superior (hit capability, firepower, sustained fire support, etc) in the SAW platform than a similar 7.62mm weapon.

4. Logistics support for the 5.56 NATO (ammunition resupply, weapons repair and support, spare parts, training, etc) are too well entrenched to easily replace the M16A2/M4/M249 series weapons.

5. The 5.56mm M16 series is now our longest-serving service rifle. It has surpassed the grand old M1903 Springfield's 36 years.

6. The Israeli Defence Forces, Republic of South Africa, have/had a continuity of battle experience (GENERATIONS of fighting), and neither wanted or needed 7.62mm infantry rifles. They consider the 5.56mm a superior anti-personnel caliber.

7.Almost all of the US-supported central American and Far Eastern militaries now use the M16-series weapons. They previously used .30-06 and 7.62mm weapons and are equally happy to have the latest in effective infantry weapons.

8. The former Evil Empire (Soviet Union), now Russia, saw the light and started to transition to the 5.45mm caliber AKS-74 weapons. Their ammunition has about the same capability as our 1960's 5.56mm M16A1.

I, like many of you out there like and prefer the good old steel-and-walnut "he-man" classic calibers .30-06, 7.62mm NATO, .303, 8mm, etc. But the simple facts are that the world's most established, numerous, and effective small arms weapons use the 5.56mm NATO wether we like it or not. It, or a minor variation, is likely to remain the standard military rifle caliber for many more years.

1911crazy · « **Reply #15 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:25:16 AM »

The real problem is these guys don't giveup even when wounded?? And still pose a threat? I guess the m16 wounds more than it kills? Is it an accuracy problem? I think the answer is between the .223 and the .30cal.(308) for sure. Probably somewhere in the 6.5mm catagory?? More range over the .223 and still less weight over the 308?
BigBill

dragthewaters · « **Reply #16 on:** March 06, 2003, 01:24:28 PM »

I agree with jhon traveler, except he didnt say anything about the bullet after it entered the body, the .223 fragments, while the others tumble, and can easily exit.

1911crazy · « **Reply #17 on:** March 06, 2003, 04:43:49 PM »

Quote from: dragthewaters

I agree with jhon traveler, except he didnt say anything about the bullet after it entered the body, the .223 fragments, while the others tumble, and can easily exit.

The .223 military round is FMJ?? I though it tumbled? Wasn't that the main thing with the m16 round the tumbling?? S.Sumner answer this one please?? Now i'm confused?? BigBill

S.B. · « **Reply #18 on:** March 06, 2003, 05:33:56 PM »

John Traveler, your missing some of the truths about this subject.
1. 5.56 mm ammo does take less room, but soldiers who are trained for marksmanship don't need as much as soldiers trained to "spray and prey".
2.Most of the enemys of America don't give a hoot in hell about the wounded that lay on the battle field, theirs or ours.
3.Penetration and wind drift only come into their own with the littler calibler before 500 yards.
4.Logistics, we didn't have a problem with this coming from the 30:06 to 7.62 mm or from 7.62mm to 5.56mm. The problem layed in the commands not ordering the right powder in the new caliber.
5.Who care how long a particular caliber has been in use if it isn't the right one for the theater we're fighting in at the time.
6.Isreal nor South Africa don't care what America is supplying as long as they don't have to pay the bill. They don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
7.The reason that these guys are happy is that they don't have to pay for their own supplies.
8. Russia can't afford toilet paper let alone start a new weapons program.
This may sound like I personally dislike the little gun, wrong, I do like the M16 family of weapons. But its a big mistake to use a close quarters gun in a long range war. Look at Afaganstan, we're not in Viet Nam anymore. Talk about a logistical error. The reports from the troops says they are asking for the surplus M14's. You can't make a .30 caliber weapon out of the M16's even if the make a 100 grain bullet work in it.

Jack Crevalle · « **Reply #19 on:** March 07, 2003, 02:41:32 AM »

Quote

Gentlemen, The US Military Establishment spent many man-hours, years or study, and tens of millions of dollars thoroughly researching the pros and cons of adopting the 5.56x45mm NATO and 9x19mm NATO calibers.

Ok, I just have to say something about this one and it's not personal.

The fact that the U.S. Government, and not just the military, spends millions of dollars and many man-hours on something does not mean it's a good idea. There are compelling reasons for keeping alive projects and ideas that should have been scraped to cut losses or not begun to start with. The contractor loses money, the politician loses jobs in their district, the General officier or bureaucrat loses face...

S.B. · « **Reply #20 on:** March 07, 2003, 03:58:48 AM »

One more comment about calibers and then I'll turn the ramble mode off. If the .45 ACP worked for close to 100 years, who in the supply line would change to something (9mm) that didn't work, well, 50 year ago? And give the contract to a out of country contractor too boot! Does anyone remember who was Chief Of Staff at this time?

savageT · « **Reply #21 on:** March 07, 2003, 04:58:09 AM »

Quote from: S.B.

One more comment about calibers and then I'll turn the ramble mode off. If the .45 ACP worked for close to 100 years, who in the supply line would change to something (9mm) that didn't work, well, 50 year ago? And give the contract to a out of country contractor too boot! Does anyone remember who was Chief Of Staff at this time?

S.B.,
Harry S Truman was President till 1953, ans his staff:
Dean Acheson, Secretary of State, 1949-1953
Charles Brannan, Secretary of Agriculture, 1949-1953
Clark Clifford, Special Counsel to the President, 1946-1950
George Elsey, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve, and duty officeer, White House Map Room, 1941-1946; Administrative Assistant to the President, 1949-1951
Robert Hannegan, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, 1944-1947
Samuel Roseman, Special Counsel to the President, 1945-1946
John Snyder, Secretary of the Treasury, 1946-1953
Stuart Symington, Secretary of the Air Force, 1947-1950
Fred Vinson, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1946-1953

Jack Crevalle · « **Reply #22 on:** March 07, 2003, 05:21:44 AM »

Quote

One more comment about calibers and then I'll turn the ramble mode off. If the .45 ACP worked for close to 100 years, who in the supply line would change to something (9mm) that didn't work, well, 50 year ago? And give the contract to a out of country contractor too boot! Does anyone remember who was Chief Of Staff at this time?

If I remember this was a political decision to throw a bone to our NATO allies ( past tense ). Beretta has had a factory here for many years since that decision and I believe it cranks out those pistols.

Lee D. · « **Reply #23 on:** March 07, 2003, 06:07:45 AM »

I think we should go to the 7.62 X 39. Then the military could buy the cheap Russian ammo and save us a lot of money.

S.B. · « **Reply #24 on:** March 07, 2003, 06:14:00 AM »

Savage T., I don't think the guys from the late '40's or early '50's were the culprits on this one. If memory serves, this took place in the '80's.

Jack Crevalle · « **Reply #25 on:** March 07, 2003, 07:38:55 AM »

Quote from: S.B.

Savage T., I don't think the guys from the late '40's or early '50's were the culprits on this one. If memory serves, this took place in the '80's.

Looks like it was 85.

http://usgi1911.tripod.com/m1911m9/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m9.htm

helobill · « **Reply #26 on:** March 07, 2003, 04:54:00 PM »

John,
Well stated and correct on all points. I'll only add one thing. The military DOES recognize the limitations of the M16. Having just come from being stationed alongside Special Operations Command South in NAVSTA Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico, I can tell you they do not take the M16 into action requiring long range shooting. We built a 500meter range for them to practice their sniper skills, with 50 cals and special 7.62's. The M16 is the best "all around" choice for the average ground pounder Grunt or Jarhead, but even they carry one 7.62 per squad for the heavy work. I know what was in my Weapons departments' magazines, and what got checked out when. Afganistan, Bosnia, and other areas have presented unique situations at different times during the conflicts. Just like we don't have one bomb to do everything, one rifle will not either. And when you're the one that's wishing you had a longer range firearm, you'll forever talk the one you were carrying down (even though it saved your butt 100 times) that's where most of the dissent arises. The M16 will be around until something else proves a better choice, the supply line will not dictate, just like the introduction of any new rifle wasn't stopped because we had too many M1's, M14's, etc in the pipeline. That's where all the neat ex-military stuff ends up on the market. The 9mm however MAY not last as long since there are some issues on top of its anemic stopping power. It kills very well, but often fails to stop the attack resulting in unacceptable "blue force" casualties.
Helicopter Bill

dragthewaters · « **Reply #27 on:** March 08, 2003, 04:43:32 AM »

big bill, it does tumble just under the skin, but it then fragments[/quote]

S.B. · « **Reply #28 on:** March 08, 2003, 05:12:38 AM »

The subject of the 5.56mm bullets tumbling has always puzzled me. I've shot my share of coyotes with these bullet and haven't witnessed this phenomena on any of them! As far as fragmenting, I've shot the exposed point bullets, while the military shoots the full metal jacket stuff( and I'll garrantee that theirs will stay together better than mine) and haven't seen this happen either. Most of the time, when loaded as hot as possible, these things go straight through. While the military doctors say they tumble because of the speed, I just haven't seen this. By the way, the hunting style of bullets kills much cleaner and quicker than the full metal jacket stuff the government shoots. Does anybody else here shoot this stuff with different results? I would really like to here from the people that get it to tumble and fragment in the field and on game animals. How about some of you people who hunt deer with this round? Is it a killer of 100 pound game animals? If not, how do we expect it to disable 200 pound soldiers?