| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Little Bullets Lose Respect |
| 2005-11-15 |
| November 15, 2005: The U.S. Armyâs cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else. While the 5.56mm bullet was OK when used in an automatic weapon, it is much less useful when you have so many troops who know how to shoot, and can hit targets just as easily with single shots. In addition to better shooting skills, the troops also have much better sights, both for day and night use. Itâs much more effective to fire less often, if you have troops who can do that and hit what they are shooting at with the first shot. Most American troops can. Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls. The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action. In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back. There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver. Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do. The other big complaint about the M16 is itâs sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the âdust sensitivityâ problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round. A decision on the armyâs new assault rifle will probably come sooner, rather than later, because the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are making a lot of Internet noise over the issue. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #16 Shieldwolf, don't optics (and I don't mean zero, I mean the calibration of the optics themselves) need to be redone for 6.8mm weapons? I'd reuse lower receivers, at least for muscle memory purposes. Then again, I'm easily distracted... DISCLAIMER: As a poor NYC student, I have no experience with guns other than handling at Fleet Week. AlanC, Soldier Weapons Assessment Team Report 6-03 totally disagrees re: "M16 sucks" and "5.56mm sucks." It was not difficult to keep the M16 series clean, just necessary, so it "received widespread praise for its durability and reliability" and the majority of issues were due to the magazines -- while for the 5.56mm, the report accepted the variety of responses but stated in its Major Findings that "with proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition is lethal in close and long range." (Emphasis all mine.) |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-11-15 22:13 |
| #15 Shieldwolf: I certainly don't claim to be a gun guru, and I haven't even stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. I have been getting interested in guns recently and have fired a variety of both hand guns and rifles. What I have seen in the ballistics tables (Federal Ammunition) is that the 65 grain 5.56 has less than half the energy at the muzzle and one sixth the energy of the 150 grain 7.62x51 they don't have a 6.8x43 round so I can't compare them there. The closest I could find was the 25-06 Remington at 117 grains and the .243 Win at 100. Both of those are far superior to the .223 but still only about .65% of the pop at 500 yds of a .308. So, I guess ya pays yer money and makes yer choice. I find the thought that the government would bother to try and re-use the lower receiver of an M16 hilarious. They'll buy brand new at the drop of a hat. (wonder what districts the factories are in?) |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-15 19:03 |
| #14 "http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_M468,,00.html" gives a lot of useful info on the 6.8 versas 5.56, and examples of the swapout upper receiver. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-11-15 17:22 |
| #13 AlanC : with the M14 and 100 rounds of ammo in magazines, you have the same weight as a M16 with 400 rounds in magazines. The projected magazines for the 6.8 would have a maximum of 25 round each, but you could carry a 6.8 rifle and 300 rounds of ammo. Also, due the the heavier bullet and the improved propellants used, the knockdown power of the 6.8 is with 95% of the 7.62 out to 600 metres - much better than any 5.56 ammo {other than hollowpoint, which is outlawed for military forces due to Law of War and Geneva Convention}. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-11-15 17:11 |
| #12 One of the first designs for the 6.8 used modified M16 magazines with a new feedlip alignment, a new spring, and a new follower. Since then, the emphasis has shifted to making completely distinct 6.8 magazines and links, because of the known issues with the M16 magazine - 28 rounds in a 30 round magazine due to feed problems, etc. However because of the dimensions of the round itself, the lower receivers are still reusable since the magazine well dimensions stayed the same. Also, the 6.8 has the downrange energy dump of the 7.62 at 600 metres, but is easily controllable in burst mode - something that is NOT true with a 7.62 assault rifle {shooting ducks at the end of the burst}. And since the newly issued optics for the US are allowing just about everyone to hit targets at 600 metres, why not take advantage of the increased lethality of the 6.8? |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-11-15 17:03 |
| #11 Sorry, AlanC, didn't see your most recent response. I believe the "standard" 6.8x43 was supposed to be 115 grains, but capacity-wise there was apparently almost no loss of capacity (28 rounds instead of 30 in a STANAG). re: interchangable ammo -- the only benefit I see is logistics, and that's when you can spend the time back at camp to manually swap cartridges between belts and magazines. One size doesn't fit all, same reason why pistol-caliber submachine guns are still used (in addition to other advantages over rifle-caliber). |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-11-15 17:00 |
| #10 That's a tad bit of an assumption, though, isn't it AlanC? IMO the situation determines the answer, but weight will ALWAYS be a factor. I disagree from the author and 7.62x51 advocates, because there ARE and WILL BE soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guard personnel who will have "girly" builds and WILL be better off with "that girly gun," to quote someone's disparaging of the M16. I would know. Handled a lot of rifles at Fleet Week 2005, found that I was best suited to a 10.5-inch barrel'd M4A1. Does that make sense? ;) Shieldwolf, can 6.8mm bullets fit in 5.56mm links and magazines? IIRC, and I've seen pictures, the cartridge cases' length and width are the same, just with a different neck. If 6.8mm rounds can be used in 5.56mm links and magazines and all that's needed is the replacement of upper receivers/barrels and optics recalibration, then logistics-wise, SOLD! |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-11-15 16:55 |
| #9 Shieldwolf: I've seen your argument before, but, I've never seen the relative load for the .308 vs. 6.8 If the 6.8mm = .75 x 5.56mm what's the .308 factor? I think that their might be some benefit to having all the main armaments firing the same round. If the M240 and the rifle have interchangeable ammo that's a win, true? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-15 16:52 |
| #8 Which is the beauty of the 6.8mm SPC : It has the downrange impact/energy dump of the 7.62x51, but you can carry about 3/4 as large an ammo load as with 5.56mm. Also, lower receivers for 5.56 can be recycled as the pre-existing half of the weapon upgrade - 6.8 was designed to fit in the magazine well of 5.56 rifles. It is a true intermediate assault round, and since the US military is no longer a draft force that is poorly trained as riflemen {one of the appeals of M16 was the fully automatic setting}, it is time to move up to the 6.8. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2005-11-15 15:23 |
| #7 Edward, I'm not sure what your point is. The thrust of the article, and many others I have read, indicate that for a variety of reasons the 5.56 NATO round (aka .223 Win) is inferior and needs to be replaced with a heavier round like the 7.62 NATO (aka .308 Win) The link I entered shows the VEPR II battle rifle that is available in a variety of calibers including 7.62 x 39 (the AK-47 round) the .223 and the .308. There are, of course, any number of rifles in any of these calibers. The question is which caliber does the best job for the soldier? Apparently author thinks that .308 is better since the weight factor is no longer seen as important. When you're in full auto spray and pray mode you want to be able to carry a lot, hence the smaller cartridge. In Iraq the better trained soldier (compared to VietNam) is more sniper like in his use of ammo so doesn't need to carry as much. Once you've decided on the caliber, THEN you can decide on the delivery platform. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-15 15:04 |
| #6 NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN (NTSA)*... mojo and Snetch have it; I've been hearing about Russian AP rounds, such a 9mm that supposedly outperforms 5.7x28mm. If there's a new caliber, better not forget the AP... Steve, I don't know if they tested the XM8 with 6.8mm and 7.62x39, but basically it was hyped as having the potential for the "battlefield pickup" that the FN SCAR ended up having, albeit in Light (5.56mm, 6.8mm?) and Heavy (7.62x39, 7.62x51) rifles. AlanC, there's already AKs in 5.56 (solving the M16 vs. AK reliability question -- albeit so did the XM8), and as we know in 7.62x39, but conversely there've been the AR-47 and the SR-47, both M4 rifles chambered in 7.62x39. Oh, and while an Army E-4 (specialist) thought that it would be a logistical nightmare to have the HK416 issued alongside regular M16/M4 systems, it apparently showed much greater reliability. But now I wonder how 5.56 compares vs. 5.45x39... * Sorry if this offends anyone, but I'm just fed up with all of the 5.56mm bashing. |
| Posted by: Edward Yee 2005-11-15 14:42 |
| #5 There's a lot of discussion of this topic on various gun forums. One option is an AK-47 in 7.62 NATO. http://www.ak47.com/VEPR%20II%20308.htm If the Russians can build one, I assume we could. http://www.robarm.com/ |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-11-15 13:46 |
| #4 As I discovered with my hybrid bike, it was composed of the worst parts of both. Too heavy to be a good road bike; not sturdy enough to be a good mountain bike. Pfeh. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-11-15 12:59 |
| #3 XM8 was part of the XM29 over/under system with the air-burst 20mm. Turned out to be way too heavy, so it was spun off as a 5.56. Can't find anything that suggests they tested it in any other caliber. It did have all those swappable componants that made it every thing from a sniper rifle to a little carbine. Another "one size fits all" concept that failed. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-11-15 12:48 |
| #2 We'd better be worried about both. I thought the XM-8 was supposed to be able to swap barrels and receivers also. Just more evidence of the Pentagon circle jeriking that ends up costing GI lives. |
| Posted by: Snetch Whineper9106 2005-11-15 12:23 |
| #1 Yeah, the US seems to be looking for better one-shot kill ammo, whereas China and the Russkies are going for more penetration in their ammo procurement, even to the point of designing new AP rounds. They're worried about fighting US troops with body armor, and we're worried about whacking terrorists. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-11-15 11:57 |