I know that the US military was experimenting with a replacement ammo cartridge for the M16 and its 5.56mm round. From what I understand in areas like Afganistan where long range shooting is common the 5.56 just does not have the knock down power at range. There are many reports of shooting an enemy soldier twice and several hours later he walks into an aid station looking for some help. So for some time now our military has been trying different ammo and also coming up with its own new cartridge although for some time now I have not seen any updates in the news or on line. Does anyone here know of any updates to our small arm ammo program?
Military small arms ammo
- Thread starter Camprunner
- Start date
I have no news but I cannot believe there isn't already a caliber out there to deliver a specific wallop at any given range.
"Military developments" are a truly unaccountable hole for defense money. You needn't desire something new all the time.
"Military developments" are a truly unaccountable hole for defense money. You needn't desire something new all the time.
Here's something I found.
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-army-556mm-rifle-round-replacement.html
https://www.military.com/kitup/2018/04/11/marines-working-army-556mm-rifle-round-replacement.html
Originally Posted by Kira
I have no news but I cannot believe there isn't already a caliber out there to deliver a specific wallop at any given range.
There is, but, unlike FPS games, you can't expect a real-world soldier to carry a submachinegun, a .233, a .308 and a .50BMG everywhere he goes.
As I understand it, part of the problem is the switch to a 14" barrel. It's better for urban fighting, but reduces the velocity enough that the round just makes nice, neat holes in the bad guy at 200+ metres.
I have no news but I cannot believe there isn't already a caliber out there to deliver a specific wallop at any given range.
There is, but, unlike FPS games, you can't expect a real-world soldier to carry a submachinegun, a .233, a .308 and a .50BMG everywhere he goes.
As I understand it, part of the problem is the switch to a 14" barrel. It's better for urban fighting, but reduces the velocity enough that the round just makes nice, neat holes in the bad guy at 200+ metres.
Originally Posted by emg
Originally Posted by Kira
I have no news but I cannot believe there isn't already a caliber out there to deliver a specific wallop at any given range.
There is, but, unlike FPS games, you can't expect a real-world soldier to carry a submachinegun, a .233, a .308 and a .50BMG everywhere he goes.
As I understand it, part of the problem is the switch to a 14" barrel. It's better for urban fighting, but reduces the velocity enough that the round just makes nice, neat holes in the bad guy at 200+ metres.
Correct!
Full write up here: TEST - BARREL LENGTH STUDIES IN 5.56MM NATO WEAPONS - LINK
Testing below done with M855 ammo. Eugene Stoner knew what he was doing when he designed the 20" inch M16A1
![[Linked Image]](http://sadefensejournal.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/barrel6.jpg "[Linked Image]")
Originally Posted by Kira
I have no news but I cannot believe there isn't already a caliber out there to deliver a specific wallop at any given range.
There is, but, unlike FPS games, you can't expect a real-world soldier to carry a submachinegun, a .233, a .308 and a .50BMG everywhere he goes.
As I understand it, part of the problem is the switch to a 14" barrel. It's better for urban fighting, but reduces the velocity enough that the round just makes nice, neat holes in the bad guy at 200+ metres.
Correct!
Full write up here: TEST - BARREL LENGTH STUDIES IN 5.56MM NATO WEAPONS - LINK
Testing below done with M855 ammo. Eugene Stoner knew what he was doing when he designed the 20" inch M16A1
5.56 is too [censored] small to drop a deer and should not have ever been used as a defense round against AK's/7.62 rounds. I feel we should go back to the .308/7.62x54/AR10. Excellent long range, great knock down power, good ballistics and cheap. It's already available everywhere and just plain works. Heck even a 30-06 would make a killer round and demolish the 5.56 in any area.
The thing is, the .308 is overkill at short range, and significantly cuts the amount of ammo the soldier can carry.
Realistically, the US should probably have issued short-barreled .223 rifles in Iraq and full-size .308s in Afghanistan, because of the different combat conditions. But that introduces a whole load of extra logistical complexity and means you need some guys with SMGs to deal with close-range urban threats.
Realistically, the US should probably have issued short-barreled .223 rifles in Iraq and full-size .308s in Afghanistan, because of the different combat conditions. But that introduces a whole load of extra logistical complexity and means you need some guys with SMGs to deal with close-range urban threats.
Wasn't the idea with the 5.56 (.223) round to WOUND an enemy soldier, thereby getting a buddy to pick him up and take him out of action, thereby getting TWO enemy soldiers off the field? That always seemed like a crock to me as I can''t imagine the Russians, Chinese or ISIS soldiers doing that!
Originally Posted by racin4ds
5.56 is too [censored] small to drop a deer and should not have ever been used as a defense round against AK's/7.62 rounds. I feel we should go back to the .308/7.62x54/AR10. Excellent long range, great knock down power, good ballistics and cheap. It's already available everywhere and just plain works. Heck even a 30-06 would make a killer round and demolish the 5.56 in any area.
No one wants to hump around a load out of .308 ammo. It's dead Jim. There are other rounds out there, like 6.5 Grendel, that extend capability without going .308. M855A1 looks good too.
5.56 is too [censored] small to drop a deer and should not have ever been used as a defense round against AK's/7.62 rounds. I feel we should go back to the .308/7.62x54/AR10. Excellent long range, great knock down power, good ballistics and cheap. It's already available everywhere and just plain works. Heck even a 30-06 would make a killer round and demolish the 5.56 in any area.
No one wants to hump around a load out of .308 ammo. It's dead Jim. There are other rounds out there, like 6.5 Grendel, that extend capability without going .308. M855A1 looks good too.
The M1 Garand was designred for a .276" cartridge (7mm). If we had not insisted on 30-06 at that time?....I bet we would still be happy with that .276" cartridge!
Originally Posted by Brigadier
It would be interesting to see how the 7.62X39mm round would work with good quality ammunition, not the crappy cheap stuff on the market now.
There's only so much you can do with light for caliber low BC bullets not going very fast. It's never going to be a long range performer.
It would be interesting to see how the 7.62X39mm round would work with good quality ammunition, not the crappy cheap stuff on the market now.
There's only so much you can do with light for caliber low BC bullets not going very fast. It's never going to be a long range performer.
Originally Posted by Boomer
Wasn't the idea with the 5.56 (.223) round to WOUND an enemy soldier, thereby getting a buddy to pick him up and take him out of action, thereby getting TWO enemy soldiers off the field?
That was my understanding also. Your buddy lying there screaming in pain can have quite the affect on people.
IIRC it was the Japanese that were doing this in WW2.
Wasn't the idea with the 5.56 (.223) round to WOUND an enemy soldier, thereby getting a buddy to pick him up and take him out of action, thereby getting TWO enemy soldiers off the field?
That was my understanding also. Your buddy lying there screaming in pain can have quite the affect on people.
IIRC it was the Japanese that were doing this in WW2.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Brigadier
Given that the ballistics were designed in 1947, a modern reworking of the ammo could probably make it better than the 5.56. Just thinking out loud.
Probably a lost cause since they already did s modern reworking of 5.56... see also M855A1
Quote
Furthermore, ARL tested the round against 24 layers of Kevlar fabric out to 1,000 meters, but discontinued the test as the Kevlar showed no sign of being able to stop the EPR. The EPR also penetrates some lesser-quality body armors designed to stop 7.62mm ball rounds.
https://www.army.mil/article/48657/evolution_of_the_m855a1_enhanced_performance_round
Given that the ballistics were designed in 1947, a modern reworking of the ammo could probably make it better than the 5.56. Just thinking out loud.
Probably a lost cause since they already did s modern reworking of 5.56... see also M855A1
Quote
Furthermore, ARL tested the round against 24 layers of Kevlar fabric out to 1,000 meters, but discontinued the test as the Kevlar showed no sign of being able to stop the EPR. The EPR also penetrates some lesser-quality body armors designed to stop 7.62mm ball rounds.
https://www.army.mil/article/48657/evolution_of_the_m855a1_enhanced_performance_round
Originally Posted by KJSmith
Originally Posted by Boomer
Wasn't the idea with the 5.56 (.223) round to WOUND an enemy soldier, thereby getting a buddy to pick him up and take him out of action, thereby getting TWO enemy soldiers off the field?
That was my understanding also. Your buddy lying there screaming in pain can have quite the affect on people.
IIRC it was the Japanese that were doing this in WW2.
Urban legend.
Ammo designed to wound is a war crime under the Hague convention. We still don't issue hollowpoint to most troops because of our signature to that convention.
Much as I love the M-1 Garand, and I have 4 of them, that rifle is hard for some to shoot, weighs almost twice as much as the M-16, and the ammo weighs nearly three times as much per round.
The adoption of the M-16 was all about getting weight off the infantryman, allowing far more shooting, with more ammo, and enabling better hits through lower recoil. More rounds x higher hit percentage = much more effective soldier.
Originally Posted by Boomer
Wasn't the idea with the 5.56 (.223) round to WOUND an enemy soldier, thereby getting a buddy to pick him up and take him out of action, thereby getting TWO enemy soldiers off the field?
That was my understanding also. Your buddy lying there screaming in pain can have quite the affect on people.
IIRC it was the Japanese that were doing this in WW2.
Urban legend.
Ammo designed to wound is a war crime under the Hague convention. We still don't issue hollowpoint to most troops because of our signature to that convention.
Much as I love the M-1 Garand, and I have 4 of them, that rifle is hard for some to shoot, weighs almost twice as much as the M-16, and the ammo weighs nearly three times as much per round.
The adoption of the M-16 was all about getting weight off the infantryman, allowing far more shooting, with more ammo, and enabling better hits through lower recoil. More rounds x higher hit percentage = much more effective soldier.
The selection of .30-06 for the M1 was based on logistics. We had hundreds of millions of rounds of .30-06 for the 1903 Springfield. Many soldiers went into battle in WW II with 1903s. Common ammo made sense.
The 10 round specification for the Garand's internal magazine was relaxed to 8 to accommodate the change in ammo.
The 10 round specification for the Garand's internal magazine was relaxed to 8 to accommodate the change in ammo.
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Concept of war wasn't to kill it's to wound the enemy. Takes more man power to mobilize the wounded then leave the dead. However the middle East are just different animals all together.
M193 out of 20 inch barrels is a nasty round. At shorter ranges it's probably more damaging than 7.62 ball.
Concept of war wasn't to kill it's to wound the enemy. Takes more man power to mobilize the wounded then leave the dead. However the middle East are just different animals all together.
M193 out of 20 inch barrels is a nasty round. At shorter ranges it's probably more damaging than 7.62 ball.
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Concept of war wasn't to kill it's to wound the enemy. Takes more man power to mobilize the wounded then leave the dead. However the middle East are just different animals all together.
M193 out of 20 inch barrels is a nasty round. At shorter ranges it's probably more damaging than 7.62 ball.
Yep that's why it was banned. M193 was also given the pleasant colloquialism "meat axe". NATO conventions specify an ammo must wound and not kill so it was replaced with SS109.
Originally Posted by Oildudeny
Concept of war wasn't to kill it's to wound the enemy. Takes more man power to mobilize the wounded then leave the dead. However the middle East are just different animals all together.
M193 out of 20 inch barrels is a nasty round. At shorter ranges it's probably more damaging than 7.62 ball.
Yep that's why it was banned. M193 was also given the pleasant colloquialism "meat axe". NATO conventions specify an ammo must wound and not kill so it was replaced with SS109.
Similar threads
