The Army Bullet Issue

Oh no kidding. All my years in the Marines... now my kid's years in Special Forces ... give the troops a weapon that turns enemies inside out with one hit.

Remember the 5.56 is illegal to hunt dear with in many states cause it lacks stopping power.

To equip our soldiers and Marines with anything less ... is immoral.

The 6.8SPC, designed by SOF personnel to use in the existing platform, and currently in use by some SOF'ers, is sufficient to solve the problem.

Ah, the 6.8 SPC. Nothing like reinventing the wheel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.280_British

I'm all for bigger holes from bigger bullets.

But, wouldn't it be worth-while to use better 5.56 bullets (something similar to the tactical rounds that LE uses) and see if it makes any difference, before switching rounds again?

Just asking.

Same conversation is going on at Chairman Kim's kraal. The limitations of the 5.56 have been painfully apparent for some time-- it's accurate but just doesn't supply the punch. The 7.62 is a far better round, but needs larger and heavier rifles to fire it, which apparently bothers some people. The 6.8, I think, is the "good enough" happy medium. I'd love to convert completely to it. Good luck on seeing it, though.

More on the 6.8mm SPC... at 110 or 115 grains the bullet is almost twice the weight of the 5.56 and has a larger diameter; although the 6.8mm leaves the muzzle at a lower velocity it delivers more energy downrange. And it'll shoot THROUGH more things than the 5.56. Best of all it's roughly the same length at the 5.56, which means that it's amenable to weapons that are the same size, shape and length as the M4 and M16, both of which can have their "uppers" switched easily. The 6.8 magazines are about the same size as the 5.56 mags, which means they'll fit in current load-bearing gear, and that's a very good thing. Finally, industry is set up now for production of the 6.8mm. Lots to like here, not much to dislike.

I am certainly not a ballistics expert and I susbcribe to the 'bigger is better' theory in most applications (mugs of beer, breasts, meat on sticks etc...) but it seems to me that the size and weight of a round is less important overall than marksmanship. A .45 in the arm is not going to stop a man more than a 9mm in the arm; however, I think a 5.56 in the chest will make the bad guy stop and think if not go down altogether. I hear the 'immediate stopping power' argument in close quarters but like all things in war, you need to balance capabilities with the environment. Soldiers may be kicking in doors one day and fighting in the open, at long ranges, the next. All situations and possibilities cannot be planned for, nor be solved with equipment. I can almost guarantee as soon as the new, heavier ammo comes out, complaints will be filed on the weight and resupply issues etc... Oh, and remember, DoD has to balance competing Service budget requirements so while it's nice to say 'give the troops want they want,' in reality it's not always going to happen (and the admirals and generals making these decision were once ensigns and lieutenants harping about the same isues). If we gave them want they wanted all the time, we wouldn't go to war.

Could part of the problem with the M855 be solved by taking off some of the point? The 5.6 round has a very sharp point, which means it hits a target more like a razor and less like a hammer A very pointed round loses its energy slowly, as it digs into the target. A rounded round might not dig as deep, but it might deliver more force (i.e., more stopping power) at impact. And changing from a pointed round to a blunt round of the same caliber and weight would seem to be a much easier and quicker short-term solution.

A blunt round probably won't be as accurate over long distances as a sharply pointed round, but I don't think many of these actions are being fought at 600 and 700 yards so that might not be an important consideration.

A smaller round with a high impact means you can carry more rounds for the same weight, which could be a good thing in a fire fight.

I can only speak from my 40 some odd years of experience shooting things including people.

The "Mattel Toy rifle" is good for a lot of things. But in my opinion not combat.

I keep an AR and for shooting varmits at fairly long ranges. I use a Remington .22 for close to the house. I use a Maverick 12ga for close in protection and playing with popups at close range. I have a 45 a 9mm and a 44 (single action) pistols.

None of them are good for close combat except the 12ga pump.

From experience I can tell you that the 5.56 can be deflected by something as insubstantial as dense foliage. It won't do much damage to the human body because at close range it just punchs a small hole and usually unless it hits the heart or some organ the one shot just keeps on shooting back. Back in the day, we questioned captives that had been shot several times with our M14s. They were still snotty and wouldn't even ask for medical treatment.

Yea, they have been "looking at" and "talking about" a new weapon for our infantry for over two decades.

It is time they actually did something. Anything but stick with the 5.56 and claim it "does the job".

But don't hold your breath.

Papa Ray

Sounds like we need more info. The troops are saying the 5.56 isn't good enough, but in what situations exactly are they talking about?

Is it a case of lethality at pointblank ranges against unarmored humans? (IE, AQ fighters with no body armor) In that case, we need to trash the Hague conventions of 189X and give our troops JHP and/or ballistic tip rounds. The bullets aren't opening up, their zipping through the targets at high velocity, leaving nothing but travel channels. A large bullet ain't going to help much. there ain't much difference between a 5.56mm wound channel and a 7.62mm wound channel. The heavier, faster round won't even have a chance to destabilize or tumble like 5.56s are prone to do at times.

Is it a case of penetration? (Not being able to zap badguys behind cover) In that case, a heavier round would probably help. But you have to be aware of the weight and risk trade off. It'd be shame if your heavier bullets started punching through walls into the next house over that another platoon happened to be clearing.

Finally, maybe its a case of the M-4 itself. I hear the 855 is particularly bad at killing people from that gun due to its shorter barrel. Perhaps we should reformulate the cartridges with a faster burning powder for the shorter barrel M-4s. Either that, or give out more M-16s.

Mayhaps we should consider giving out more shotguns for up close D2D operations.

Maybe we could grab a few test units and hand them some alternative weapons. Give one some 6.8s, and another unit some 7.62x39s, and study the differences. The 6.8 group might be hard to resupply, but the 7.62 group would be easy as cake. Nothing wrong with gathering additional data. I'd like to see what a company equipped with AKs, or M16s in 7.62 would have to say after a few months when they compare the alt weapons to their original guns.

The bottom line is, no gun is perfect, no ammo is perfect. We'll never be able to give all the troops just one kind of gun. The tankers will call it too bulky, the Af will call it too heavy, the army will break it, and the marines will say it doesn't kill good enough.

The 6.8 is only the answer when it is optimized. By that I mean it must be chambered in the 2nd or 3rd generation chambers. Ones with longer throats. The bores must also be rifled in 4 grove 1 in 11 to 1 in 12 twists. This allows loading a cartridge to higher muzzle velocities in short barreled (10 inch) and suppressed rifles without exceeding safe pressures. All the early manufacturers (and those that still don't really know what they are doing) used a SAMMI 6.8 chamber and 1 in 10 twist and blew up a lot of rifles until they down loaded the cartridges to the point that they were safe to shoot but were not very effective on the target. I would be surprised to 6.8's adopted in any large numbers.

Investigate the original rate of twist for the M-16 rifle as designed by Gene Stoner.

Find out why that was changed by pentagon whiz kids to the stabilized rate of twist. Goofiest reason ever heard. "Might make the enemy mad."

USAF kept the proper rate of twist longer than the ground forces did, our black rifles could tear arms off in a single shot. No. Kidding.

Then there was the wrong powder fiasco, AR had the wrong powder during the Vietnam era, USAF did not. Stoopid. But it earned the Matty a reputation underserved about jamming and needing constant cleaning due to powder fouling that is still around today. --Not to be confused with the current sand fouling problems.

Did you know that Gene built prototypes of the M-16 in both .30-06 and also in the ".308 Nato" (Originally ".308 Winchester" when in civilian guise, 7.62x51mm NATO as we know it today).

Both looked like the Matty on steroids.

Read an article that found two of those prototypes still in existence today.

I'd love a Matty in .30-06 but I doubt if that would ever happen today, but a Matty in 7.62x51mm NATO would be an interesting .30 caliber class battle rifle that would not require all the hoopla of testing and approving a new round.

If they'd just go back to the rate of twist that Gene designed, it would be a rather simple barrel changeout. I'm not publishing that rate of twist on the internet, military personnel with access can find it easily enough.

Screw the ogive (shape and point) talk, the "unstable" FMJ that rocketed out of our early Viet era Matties issued to SAC was a devastating round, close quarters or long distance. The "whiz kids" in washington at the time made sure that it became nothing more than a rather flat shooting target round suitable for judging groups on paper.

Engineers design good things.

Bureaucrats and other higher-ups always get in on the "design" after the fact and think that they are smarter than our engineers.

Eugene Stoner was a genius.

It is one of those twists of history that his design will likely forever be blamed for a problem that didn't exist until idiots "fixed" it.

My first wife had the cat fixed.

He was quite the different fellow after that.

!

Interesting debate regarding the relative merits of various types of rifle ammo. Which round is better, it depends on who you ask, oh by the way, the debate regarding the right round has been going for at least 100 years. With the introduction of the 30.06 round there was considerable debate whether or not it was as good as the .303 British. There are other issues which need to be taken into account. . .one of the reasons the Army switched to the 5.56mm was the weight of the 7.62mm round. Having waffled on this subject let me lay out my position. We need to go back to the 30.06 and M1, although with some modification, a magazine. Part of the problem which I have observed in my 30 years in the Army is we don't teach our soldiers to shoot, with the M16/M4 A2/3 it is too easy for our soldiers to go to automatic. A semi automatic weapon should be the standard for the rifleman. . .the real issue is what do you do for the auto fire, we should consider a replacement for the M249 which has not lived up to its hype. Just my opinion. . .which we all know is worth about 0.

COL Hank: You write "We need to go back to the 30.06 and M1, although with some modification, a magazine." Given that the .308 can duplicate the military loading of the 30-06, aren't you suggesting that the military return to the M-14, or more exactly, the semi-automatic M1A?

I like the SCAR system.(NOT) A platform weapon system that can be altered to fit the operational parameters. Faults, yes, extra weight, mult. barrels, mags, various boxes of rounds dependent on the given assignment.
AND most important, a soldier's ability to meld effective fire control with a weapon whose primary characteristics may change on a day to day basis! I'm with B-52 on this one, The STONER was the ULT field service weapon, until the WAPOLS got involved.

The M855 is designed to penetrate hard things and be fired from the SAW. The 55 grain round is much better but won't stabalize properly in current .mil barrels.
Even better: switch to the heavy Mk262 that's currently used by some.

If you switch to the 7.62 NATO, well, you're going to be able to carry a LOT less ammo.
I've got a vest that carries 360 rounds of 5.56mm (30 round mags). Or it can carry 120 rounds of 7.62 NATO (20 round mags).

6.8mm will just make logistics people scream. Change out uppers, mags (they aren't the same), ammo stocks.

I'd vote for more production of Mk262.

Also, B52geezer, Stoner actually ONLY designed a 7.62mm AR, the AR-10 (which is currently made by Armalite, DPMS, and Knights). The AR-10 was then modified into the AR-15 by two other guys working for Armalite.
They're still in use. Army uses the Knights rifle as a sniper weapon. And in fact, you can buy a copy of the original AR-10 from Armalite as the AR-10B.

Also, the Dutch (IIRC) used the original AR-10 for a time.

I agree with Col Hank! The M1 won WW2 with the 30-06 round. As Gen. Patton said," It was the greatest battlefield impliment ever invented"!
And no you don't have to violate the Hague conventions with the larger round as long as they are full metal jacketed you are covered.
As far as the M1a or M14 goes they are far superior than the little M16. Sure they are heavier but that makes far a more accurate weapon.

mustang,

The sherman won WW2 as well.

Yes, and it was also nicknamed the "Zippo" for obvious reasons! It was the old quanity vs. quality issue.

As for the Sherman that 'quantity has a quality of its own' comment. Check the 31 Allied armored vehicles that died in ONE French village before the crew abandoned the empty tiger tank! When they examined that tiger they found 12 direct hits, and the tiger was fully serviceable except for being low on ammo and out of fuel. When replenished it started and, I believe, sent to Aberdeen proving grounds for testing.
I have always thought that the 5.56mm round was for shooting rock chucks (varmint hunting), and I have had several letters from my god son, a Marine recon type, who says that any number of M-14's 'have fallen off trucks' and a into troops hands looking for more long range and knock down power.
Maybe it is time we start listening to the guys at the sharp end of the spear and quit trying to reinvent the wheel. I am child of the Viet Nam era military (Navy) and listened with rapt awe to tales of Eugene Stoners great weapon(s) and with horror to to tales of troops found dead with M-16's torn apart trying to clean and make them operate!
You hit something with an 7.62 round and it falls down! You see someone standing there with a two foot piece of oak and a four inch flash hider and big box mag full of 7.62mm and it will scare the bad guys, I have seen during active duty myself chasing the damned dopers in Caribbean! The 'matty' looks like something you bought from the PX for your kids! Never underestimate the power intimidation. I have had heard any number of stories about Mahdi army shooters out of range of M-25 5.56 rifles get switched off by longer ranged rifles (including BAMR rounds ouchies!).