At my old job, we used to always joke that it wasn’t news unless the Washington Post, New York Times or AP reported it — even if we’d done the story a month earlier.
Well, here’s another case of the “it ain’t news” phenomenon. We’ve been covering the heck out of this issue for more than a year, but when the chief says something about it and the AP hears it, well, then, Stop the Presses!
From today’s Military.com headlines:
The military is reviewing Soldiers’ complaints that their standard ammunition isn’t powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army’s highest-ranking officer said Thursday. But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch.
Current and former Soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military’s M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from Soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.
“To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten,” Casey said. “We’ll evaluate it quickly and then we’ll decide how we want to proceed.”
But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.
“I can’t tell you exactly what we’re going to do,” he said.
How much do you want to bet the answer to that question is “nothing”…? Kinda like the M-4 debate, huh?
– Christian
Kinda like the M-4 debate alright being as that the #1 reason to change from the M16/M4 is the 5.56mm NATO is inadequite. The difference is that while there are choices out there that are a little better than the M16/M4 is SOME minor areas, there are choices out there that are SIGNIFICANTLY better than the 5.56mm NATO in nearly every way except for total number of rounds that can be carried.
Just compare compulsory double-tapping with one effective impact. Both 6.5 and 6.8 are serious candidates for improving physical effect AND soldier’s confidence. The latter is specially important, keeping in mind the growing discouraging image of not-so-good-ole 5.56.
After all, there is a clear limit about the terminal effect of an ammunition directly derived from a varmint one.
Just compare compulsory double-tapping with one effective impact. Both 6.5 and 6.8 are serious candidates for improving physical effect AND soldier’s confidence. The latter is specially important, keeping in mind the growing discouraging image of not-so-good-ole 5.56.
After all, there is a clear limit about the terminal effect of an ammunition directly derived from a varmint one.
im sure someone has done testing on which round is the most effective for single shot knock down. anyone have some insights?
.50 Cal heavy machine guns are found to generally produce single shot knockdown. There are said to be some minor issues with issuing M2HBs as a replacement for M4s, but I suspect it’s all a conspiracy by the Generals to not give our soldiers effective guns.
It is a religious debate. Evidence, facts, and logic are of no place here.
No one has ever done an adequate case study on whether the increase in number of rounds carried (made possible by the smaller size of the 5.56 round) offsets the decrease in lethality caused by the smaller round. Honestly, there is no way to know. The increase in the number of rounds soldiers can carry allows more suppression fire. It allows a change of tactics. Does the increase in soldier safety caused by greater suppressive fire offset the decrease in soldier safety caused by those rare occasions where you shoot a guy and he doesn’t die? Nobody truly KNOWS. Everyone who spouts off their opinion might as well be arguing about whether Jesus could beat up Buddha in a fight — it is a religious argument with no solid statistical evidence either way.
Ultimately, the army will do nothing. Which is what they should do. They shouldn’t make a major change to a new type of ammunition (again requiring a total reequipment of all soldier rifles) on the basis of no evidence.
Very easy solution. Make the .223 hollow point. Screw the UN. When you’re shooting at someone you’re trying to kill that person. Makes no sense to ban hollow points for the military. The police uses them. I guess hollow points are good enough for americans shooting americans but not American soldiers shooting enemy soldiers.…
It is amusing this 5.56mm debate has be going on since the beginning. I personally have never liked it for anything other than sport.
I don’t think the Pentagon will replace the 5.56mm during wartime, but they should and probably will replace the M855 5.56 rounds, given the M4.
If I read the most recent complaint correctly, troops are complaining about the wound ballistics using the short barrels of the M4 and short range of the targets; leading to over penetration (clean wounds) of the human targets from the 62gr SS109. What you want is expansion inside the cavity, and delivering as much energy inside the body as possible. Who knows what is legal, but a hunting .223 round would probably work.
I think Iraq and Afghan are two separate animals. One being urban CQB and other Mountain LR. A more lethal 5.56 for Iraq and 7.62 only for Afghan.
6.8mm SPC would be ideal, but that switch is impossible anytime in the near future, if ever.
My own favorite, that I fire from my M4 is the Federal Premium 69gr Sierra MatchKing BTHP. Totally rocks! It is rumored some SOF are looking at a 70+gr 5.56mm hunting versions.
I thought they have already addressed this issue. They are issuing the Iraq Army the M-16. Soon, they will convince the taliban to switch also and then both sides will have the same power limitations.
After that, they are planning to equip the Iraqi Army with paint ballguns. Pretty ingenious if you ask me.
The standard issue is certainly not the best available. Socom uses a Black Hills 77 gr Sierra MatchKing bullet. Just recently just brought a new, all copper Barnes bullet on board called the 5.56 optimized.
Check out this for ballistic gelatin comparisons between the m855 and the SOCOM bullets.
http://stevespages.com/pdf/5_56mm_military_info.pdf
Interestingly, the tungsten frangible are really nasty. i suspect any 5.56 frangible would be devastating.
Oh, I forgot to mention that the link I posted in internal generate in SOCOM. The summary is
“of the currently available 5.56 mm ammunition, the best overall choices for military use in carbines and rifles are the readily available and JAG approved Hornady 75 gr OTM, BH loaded Nosler 77 gr OTM, and BH loaded MK262 77 gr Sierra Match King OTM–all of which offer both superior incapacitation potential, as well as greater accuracy than M855 62 gr FMJ”
I wholeheartedly agree with Jack on this one. I can’t understand why when we have no problem firing molten copper slugs (sensor fused weapon) or tungsten cubes (AGM-88C) at the enemy but we won’t shoot them with hollow point ammo. What is the logic behind that? Are we worried that insurgents or another army might start using this ammo against us? I would wager that hollow tips would be even more susceptible to our body armor. Which makes me realize that during 1899 when the Hague Convention took place personal protection from bullets was barely feasible much less practical.So I don’t understand the present rational behind banning hollow points for ether humanitarian or deterrence reasons.
POINT TO NOTE: The U.S. Military actually ALREADY does use hollow tip ammo. They use hollow tip ammo on certain sniper rifles due to the phenomenal accuracy at long ranges.(Sierra “Matchking”)
Why can’t we say we need the increased accuracy for 5.56mm and put hollowtips on ‘em. Which wouldn’t be a real lie since A) Soldiers have been complaining the weak long range accuracy of the SS109 round for awhile and B) We have already fielded the Mk 262 Special Ball Long Range primarily paired with the Mk. 12 sniper rifle. This is a 77 grain hollow tip bullet. Why can’t replace the standard SS109 round with these.
sorry ian didnt see your posts would have left out “point to note“
p.s. lmao at kevin’s post “minor issues” lol
sorry ian didnt see your posts would have left out “point to note“
p.s. lmao at kevin’s post “minor issues” lol
Please excuse my ignorance but, why were caseless rounds never adopted? It would seem that caseless would solve the weight & volume problems involved in going to a larger round. If the military is looking at replacing the M-16 it would seem sensable (damn my vulcan logic) to consider going to different ammo at the same time.
served, but never fired a round in anger.
my US$0.02 is that I felt confident with the G3 (7.62x51). great range, plenty of power. 20 vs 30 round mag. heavy, too. but the added penetration (light walls) would make sense tome in a mout scenario. the added effective range (400 with iron sights, 800+ with scope) was nice too.
another nice thing about the G3 was the roller delayed blowback. made a lot more sense to me than siphoning gas from the barrel to drive a piston. extremely rarely saw a jam due to dirt and cleaning was quick and simple.
why a 6.8 mm is being thrown into the mix is uinclear to me. any slight advantage weightwise seems like it would quickly be outweighed by logistics, since there are plenty of 30 cal weapons already fielded.
About caseless ammo, HK’s G11 was trialed decades ago (in the ACR competition), and they basically found that even if they solved the ammo cook-off, toxic fumes, and feed problems (which they mostly did), the caseless nature meant that the chamber would overheat way faster because there weren’t any spent shells soaking up heat and then venting. I suspect that this is a problem that could be solved today, but the I think the truth is that the massive logistics change that would have to happen would simply not be worth the performance gains.
Given how the Army seems to be stretched to the limit (in terms of money and manpower), I doubt that they could implement any type of ammo change over involving non-compatible rounds.
Perhaps someone might finally decide that a weapon that can be “topped” by an appropriate upper reciver group, WITH the an appropriate caliber and bullet type for the A/O might be a way to go.
NO ONE in our current Ordnance Corp will admit that the 7.62x39 is, perhaps, the best universal ctg. we’ve ever seen. Perhaps it isn’t,… but it surely comes close. My SKS does a pretty nice job with that .30 cal projo beating up a cinder block at 100 yards. Beyond that, use some of the new toys we’re spending so much on.
GO BACK to the .45 for handguns. If you can’t shoot it,… PERHAPS you don’t belong in that job. Sorry.
What about AR-18 in .308? CETME or L1A1.… et al? That was a pretty good standard round and I think we should reconsider and perhaps,…have stayed with it. Mini-guns seem to like it. so do many, many machine guns. It’s really nothing more that the old 30–06,… shortand because of better gunpower and to make recievers shorter & same brass weight.
With all the methods of re-supply we have today; directional air-drops,UAV’s,Helicopters,..etc., resupply should NOT be a problem. I suspect someone will figure out how to hollow out an Arty round and shoot supplies like ammo soon. (Probably have already)
For over all work, the mid-range ctg. expairement has been a failure. Neither the .223 or the AK round can be all things to all men at all times. Go Back to the 7.62 NATO accept for Special Ops. Let them select what they want to take on a specific mission because they are called: “SPECIAL OPS”!!!!!DAAAA! Hello?
JD
Please review this fantastic website before coming to any judgments on the 5.56mm.
http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
All truth, no religion.
I just talked to an NCO who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They call the 5.56 round, referring to the M-16/M-4 as pop guns.
I think that sums up how they feel about it. Same as I did when I served. It’s not a round that incapacitates the enemy. We need a round that has some knock down effect. No not a heavy powerful round like the old 30,06 or even the .308/7.62mm but something that has some kick like the 6.8mm or 6.5mm.
6.5… 6.8… What’s wrong with a plain old 7.0? It’s a little better situated between .223 and .308, being a .270… More mass on target, great loads, good cartridge designs, and compatibility with .308 designs — a barrel swap would be all that’s needed.
Some interesting links. But all the examples of the Black Hills ammo in the PDF were, based on the MV shown in the images, shot with a 16″ or longer barrel using muzzle velocity. M855 also looks pretty good at 3100 fps, not so good at 2400 fps (200 meters). What are the wound ballistics of the black hills ammo at 200 — 400 meters from an M-4?
Looks like the military is gonna stay with Colt’s M-4, so why not change the ammo? The hell with that piece of paper, those Soldiers, Marines should be firing hollow points in houses and close qaurters. The 6.8mm would be just right, and Barrett makes the 468. Its politics, and the men doing the fighting suffer. The G3 is a weapon with punch, but the regular forces will never see one. The SAS uses it, and thats good enough for me
uh. Huh? WHAT!? For a moment I thought that I landed on some odd foreign poetry website.
Anyway, I have done some pondering lately and my real problem is the Army/Pentagon argument that they will not replace the M-16/M-4 unless the new weapon makes a
Im a Grendel lover. The bullet is very versatile, it can range from explosive 90 grain to mighty 144, has espectacular aerodynamics. At 1100 yards, it still has more energy than a 9mm that just came out of the barrel.
M…4…6…8
Problem solved Pentagon.
The US Army already has an answer to the 5.56mm close combat battle stopping power issues. They are putting semi-automatic shot gun modules on the M4 carbines:
http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0508/news/news3005_m26.htm
The U.S. Army plans to acquire 35,000 M-26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System (MASS)
1) To those among you who wish the U.S. Armed Forces to return to the 7,62mm calibre:
I doubt very much that trading 5,56mm M-16’s and M-4’s for 7,62mm G3’s (even today) would help the U.S.A. win it’s two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nothing will, nothing ever could, except maybe a Gallipoli-like retreat at night.
2) To those among you who suggest employing expanding rounds against Humans:
a) YOU ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE HYPOCRITES : Do you also advocate their use (illegal in war) at home, by your own Police — or merely against all non-U.S. Americans abroad?
b) Until now the U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan paid with their lives only for their F
freefallingbomb —- are you FRENCH?
You certainly sound French.
The USA did NOT sign the “treaty” banning the use of “dum-dums” therefore they (I’m Australian) could use them in war ‘legally’.
The point is that you are badly misinformed mate!
Sakray bler!
Freefallingbomb —-
I just re-read your post and it makes me ask if using “dum-dums” would cause the enemy to start doing “illegal” things of their own;
LIKE USING SUICIDE BOMBERS or IED’s?
Just wondering.……
Freefall,
Allow me to begin by saying your comments are vastly uninformed, ignorant, and offensive. Your use of the word ‘retarded’ in particular is unjustified; my niece has down syndrom, and can speak two languages at the age of three. She makes a heck of a lot more sense than using .22 ammo against cowardly insurgants who hide behind civies. Don’t compare the two.
Secondly, If we were fighting regular army, than maybe international war law would apply. We are not, however, fighting any national or regular army, but rather a vast insurgancy. So I say throw in some Black Talons, Ballistic Noslers, and a few other interesting meat choppers into the mix.
You seem to think that the ‘valient muslim army’ will suddenly decide to win the war in a day. Lately, the war has not been good to them, but reading your comments, one would think they are chosing the noble path of the loser. Don’t worry, we are not yet to the point of strapping bombs to our women and children, ourselves.
Onto the subject at hand, CLEARLY 30 cal is the way to go. It won us many wars in the past, and it can do it again.
Lastly, you weren’t fighting Americans at Gallipoli.
To the poster “Steve Dixon” (1) :
You wrote: “The USA did NOT sign the ‘treaty’ banning the use of ‘dum-dums’ therefore they (I’m Australian) could use them in war ‘legally’. The point is that you are badly misinformed mate!“
Oh am I…?
I bet that you over there in Australia’s Outback never even HEARD the name of that (old!) international body that rules which ammunitions are legal in war and which aren’t. It’s called the “Hague Convention”, and the U.S.A. ARE a RATIFYING signatary of that treaty.
The principal provision relating to the legality of weapons is contained in the
Art. 23e of the “Annex to Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 18 October 1907″,
which prohibits the employment of
“arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury”.
In some law of war treaties, the term “unnecessary suffering” is used rather than “superfluous injury”. The terms are regarded as synonymous. To emphasize this,
Art. 35, paragraph 2 of the “1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949″,
states in part that
“it is prohibited to employ weapons and projectiles … of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering”.
And the U.S.A. signed that.
Aussie uhhh… “mate”: Go back to your koala litter before some kangoroo eats them.
To the poster “Daniel”:
You wrote: “My niece has down syndrom, and can speak two languages at the age of three. She makes a heck of a lot more sense than using .22 ammo against cowardly insurgants who hide behind civies. Don’t compare the two.“
I’m terribly sorry to hear about the suffering of your three-years-old niece, but you will surely concede that over 4.000+ U.S. soldiers (and counting) already disappeared seven palms under the earth and 30.000 others are permanently maimed (some in mental institutions, forever), not to mention their destroyed families, and completely needlessly so, and let’s not forget those 1.000.000 dead innocent civilian Iraqis and their own families too (or were they all “al-Qaeda leaders”?), and all that ONLY because someone “way up there” in the hierarchy of the U.S. / Military isn’t perfectly well in his head, and maybe he isn’t exactly the only one in the country who is like that (he got re-elected).
“She makes a heck of a lot more sense than using .22 ammo against cowardly insurgents who hide behind civies. Don’t compare the two.“
I believe that the main (and serious) accusation against the .223 calibre has to do with its ineffectiveness at LONG ranges, not during gunfights happening across the street or around check-points or inside elevators, like those which you described (“insurgents who hide behind civies”).
Anyway, most videos on
“YouTube“
http://www.youtube.com/
“MILITARYVIDEOS.NET“
http://www.militaryvideos.net/
“Military Videos.TV“
http://www.militaryvideos.tv/
only show Abrams tanks firing at isolated Iraqi snipers on rooftops or inside abandoned buildings, because the besieging U.S. Infantry “alone” invariably failed to neutralize them with a million rounds. After watching these unworthy spectacles I really ask myself whether these inept, anarchically powder-burning U.S. American infanterists shouldn’t simply all be replaced by a smaller group of unarmed but well-protected Forward Air / Artillery Controllers doing the same patrols (reconnaissance) : It’s the same effect but cheaper than buying “guns” for U.S. soldiers!
“Secondly, If we were fighting regular army, than maybe international war law would apply.“
“Maybe”? Just “maybe”? What’s the doubt?!
“We are not, however, fighting any national or regular army, but rather a vast Insurgency.“
Veeery cleverly lawyered, I must admit…: Invade a country without formally declaring war, then you can already consider every single resistant as an “evil al-Qaeda terrorist” (“it’s not war, so he’s automatically a terrorist”), and then suddenly “no law applies to him anymore” if he gets captured alive… Unfortunately this preposterously self-serving definition of “Justice” for “terrorists” (“exempt of all existing national and international laws”) was invented (so far) exclusively by the same Neocon criminals who also invaded two countries without the approval of the U.N.O. (and probably in crass violation of all its laws too — hey, the Neocons even threw the U.N.O. weapons inspectors out of Iraq and refused Saddam Hussein’s personal offer to let them occupy Iraq WITHOUT AN INVASION in exchange for his exile!), against the whole World opinion and who flee from the International Court of Justice in Hague like the Devil does from holy water. (The Neocons also use this “reasoning”, based on their initial findings of a W.M.D.-armed Saddam Hussein who attacked the U.S.A. on 11 / 9, to gradually create a Fascist Police State, but that’s already an internal affair of the U.S.A. . Couldn’t happen to a nicer people anyway)
You U.S. Americans however never dared to apply this “logic” against any medium power yet, let alone against any major power, only against 1.200 innocent Muslim civilians randomly kidnapped around the World and illegally detained without any charge and hope of a minimally fair trial, which only demonstrates the bottomless sadism and cowardice of you “leaders of the free World” (don’t make me PUKE ) !
If the U.S. American “War on Turr” is really so “legal”, even on an “internal scale”, then why do the U.S.A. have to transfer these “terrorists” to secret torture centers in other, even murkier regimes than their own?
Are you, an adult, completely insane to disseminate that kind of rhethoric here or simply brainless, utterly value-less and eternally grateful to your F
Freefall, my niece is not suffering, she loves life. And anti-semitists are pigs.
The .30 cal does a better job of killing folk, simple and straight. a .30–06 or a .308 are not so easily stopped by bullet proof vests as you might think, and even with a ballistic plate, it is still likely to penetrate.
As to controllability, again, you are over-zealous in your propaganda. It may take a little training, but even the great .30–06 is easily taimed in a solid rifle like the M1A1 SOCOM series, with which I have seen elderly old men shoot a point target at a thousand yards. And if you really want to say Americans are guilty of spray-n-pray, I’ve seen plenty of video from Al-Shazira showing just how much fire discipline insurgants can muster.
Put a good 30 Cal in the hands of a few good Marines, and you may be shocked at how quickly they corrode the ranks. Even with considerable recoil, which the SOCOM series lacks, they are, in the end, Marines and not especially afraid of a hard-hitter.
I am glad to see that you are more concerned with the topic on hand, but this is not a political forum. Next to the big turkey shoot in the sandbox, this war has been the least costly for US Soldiers. And I would guess your view of innocence is different then mine. Please stick to bullets when on a discussion of bullets.
To the poster “Daniel”:
You wrot: “Anti-semitists are pigs.“
No we’re not. We’re normally very hygienic, hard-working, tax-paying, associative, politically active, disciplined, Church-going, law-abiding people and loyal patriots too (although I personally ABHOR patriotism. My head is too big to be able to think patriotically), we have strong family ties, a broad interest in life, are moral, have quite normal tastes about everything, tend to be rather conservative, not liberal, are fierce defenders of our countries’ archetypical habits and characteristics, believe in enjoying the World’s flavours separately, can be highly educated (and famous) too, including a few anti-Semites in the U.S.A. , and unlike the soft-headed leftists we’re NEVER na
love
6.5 Grendel Gas piston Uppers. 6.5 Grendel Gas Piston Uppers. 6.5 Grendel Gas Piston Uppers.
PROBLEM SOLVED!
I’ve never been a proponent of small-caliber rifles for our infantry forces. Regardless, has the U.S. Army emperimented with necking-up the 5.56x45mm NATO to accept larger diameter projectiles for knockdown? Assuredly, 6.5mm-caliber bullets are likely the upper limit without experiencing cracked case necks. Both the 6.35x45mm and 6.5mmx45mm are worth looking at, as either one will send 87–90 graim bullets at over 2700 FPS from the M16’s 20-inch barrel.
Yup, the Barrett 468 would be one of my choices. It can be fitted with a suppressor so you can save ur hearing. LWRC makes plenty of rifles for a 6.8mm round. One version you can swap ur short barrel for an 18 inch barrel. I hope the Army takes a real hard look at changing. You can clean that M-4, and if you get into a running gunbattle lasting over 24 hrs., you do not have time to clean it. So, it jams and ur out of luck. You need to pull that trigger more than once to bring a man down, I bet a 6.8 or 7.62 its usually one and done.
The 5.56 NATO has served us, and regrettably, for 40 years; it is obsolete. It is long overdue to be replaced by something more potent. Urban encounters need greater knockdown than the 5.56 NATO.
At the funding level, the military has de-emphasized the things that get the most work done in war and spent their money foolishly on flashy toys that look neat on the History Channel.
Like it or not, guns (from the rifle to heavy artillery) are the workhorses of the military. They kill the enemy in larger numbers than anything else and for the lowest cost. Perfecting ours, and the art of using them would do more for the military than anything else.
Unfortunately, the politicians in congress and the funding whores at the top of the military aren’t interested in anything that doesn’t include millions in unneccesary electronics.
The Military has already done the work on a 6.8mm special purpose cartridge (SPC) for the Special Forces. It has almost twice the energy of a 5.56mm at the same range. Check out the specs.
http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-mm-spc-cartrid...
Here’s another:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_4_...
If you have MS Powerpoint you can see the specs:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session3/dennis...
This is the round that all grunts should be using in the field!!
The Military has already done the work on a 6.8mm special purpose cartridge (SPC) for the Special Forces. It has almost twice the energy of a 5.56mm at the same range. Check out the specs.