5.45 vs 5.56 vs 6.5 vs 6.8 vs 300 B:O vs ???

[QUOTEUntil you figure out that you are drawing a false distinction, we will continue to lose soldiers' lives in a futile attempt at fighting a war a "perfect" war.
The reason we have been losing the war for the past 12 years is that we have been trying to approach it like it's some special case.

"Winning" hearts and minds, rebuilding infrastructure (that the enemy will use against us), bending over backwards to avoid "civilian" casualties (the quotation marks are there because many of those supposed civilians are actually combatants), imposing suicidal ROEs on our troops and appeasing the enemy are exactly what has been the problem.

An insurgency is still a subset of war. It may not be state vs. state, but the underlying principles are still the same.][/QUOTE]

So you have some good examples of where playing wack-a-mole has resulted in a big old friendly, stable nation forming? Where making the public hate you more helped in the long run?
Where has the bigger hammer been the fix?
 
CplDogNuts said:
No change needed. 5.56 all the way. The US army addressed this already with the M855A1 and the MK262 rounds. Look up 5.56 on Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO
Click to expand...

M855A1 hardly addressed the issues with M193. M855 and M855A1 were designed to increase barrier penetration, not wounding capability. The main failing of M193 IMO is that it fails to provide significant wounding at range. Even with a 20"bbl C7 or M16 the cartridge looses effectiveness at 200m. As for MK262 and MK318, both are promising rounds, but they will never see general issue because they're open tip projectiles. Issuing them to general infantry would be a violation of the Hague conventions. Nobody wants that kind of bad politics pinned on them.
 
tootall said:
I hadnt heard of the 7x46 UIAC before.
I found this. http://7x46mmuiac.com/7x46mm_Specifications.html
Interesting that is was developed by the same guy that created the 6.8x43 SPC.
Even more interesting see how close it is to the 60 year old 7x43 cartridge that UK, Belgium and Canada designed so long ago
Click to expand...

7x46 ballistics in a cased telescopic package is the answer to the question of what the next generation of small arms should look like.
 
Paladin308 said:
M855A1 hardly addressed the issues with M193. M855 and M855A1 were designed to increase barrier penetration, not wounding capability. The main failing of M193 IMO is that it fails to provide significant wounding at range. Even with a 20"bbl C7 or M16 the cartridge looses effectiveness at 200m. As for MK262 and MK318, both are promising rounds, but they will never see general issue because they're open tip projectiles. Issuing them to general infantry would be a violation of the Hague conventions. Nobody wants that kind of bad politics pinned on them.
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that the Mk262 was deemed legal for use as it's not designed to fragment. The hollow-point is purely for external ballistic benefits.
 
Paladin308 said:
M855A1 hardly addressed the issues with M193. M855 and M855A1 were designed to increase barrier penetration, not wounding capability. The main failing of M193 IMO is that it fails to provide significant wounding at range. Even with a 20"bbl C7 or M16 the cartridge looses effectiveness at 200m. As for MK262 and MK318, both are promising rounds, but they will never see general issue because they're open tip projectiles. Issuing them to general infantry would be a violation of the Hague conventions. Nobody wants that kind of bad politics pinned on them.
Click to expand...

Most of the issues regarding SS109s reported lack of stopping power/ wounding capacity has been traced back to a shooter induced failure to put the bullet in the target.
There was a US audit completed in Iraq regarding night searches that showed even inside the same room most rounds were hitting everything but the intended target.
Shooter reports 6 rounds to neutralize target, coroner finds one bullet hole in body.
 
Stephen1546 said:
It was my understanding that the Mk262 was deemed legal for use as it's not designed to fragment. The hollow-point is purely for external ballistic benefits.
Click to expand...

The same could be said for the MK318 Mod 0, but that's only deemed legal for issue to special forces because they are acting in an international policing capacity rather than a military capacity. Technically, Canada is not a signatory to the Hague conventions because we were still hiding in G.B's skirts at the time, so we may not actually have any legal obligation to abide by their terms, but you won't see any brass or politicians (I guess they're kinda the same thing, aren't they?) pushing that notion. Even if they did we'd probably still be using FMJ ammunition for the sake of sticking to the whole NATO cross-compatibility thing.

M855A1 is about as far as they'll go in terms of adopting new projectiles for general issue. Personally, I'd like to see some work on improving the idea behind the 5.45x39 7n6 projectile, as that offers the best chance of improving terminal ballistics while staying within the confines of the Hague Conventions. Either that or just nix the Hague Conventions and come up with a more sensible standard.
 
Last edited:
Gunnerlove said:
Most of the issues regarding SS109s reported lack of stopping power/ wounding capacity has been traced back to a shooter induced failure to put the bullet in the target.
There was a US audit completed in Iraq regarding night searches that showed even inside the same room most rounds were hitting everything but the intended target.
Shooter reports 6 rounds to neutralize target, coroner finds one bullet hole in body.
Click to expand...

The issue with M193/M855A1/SS109 isn't really prevalent at room clearing distances unless you're using a <10.5" bbl. I don't have hard data on terminal ballistics with the M855A1 projectile, but a significant amount of study was done on the M193. The finding was that below 2700FPS M193 projectiles would no longer fragment or tumble reliably, resulting in much smaller wound channels. Out of a 20" barrel M193 will stay above 2700FPS to a range of approximately 200m. With a 10.5" bbl the velocity at the muzzle sits right at the 2700FPS range. M855A1/SS109 was designed to enhance penetration of barriers, because of this it is less likely to deform on impact increasing the chance that it will fail to cause significant wounding.

I have no doubt that many reports of failure to stop the threat can be put down to poor marksmanship, but there is empirical data to support the idea that the wounding capability of the round is lacking.
 
Zero militaries issue M193.
It died decades ago.

SS109 is longer and has the center of gravity farther towards the rear. This increases the bullets desire to yaw and the yaw causes the bullet to fragment.
Is it the best bullet? No, but changing to more expensive bullets/ larger caliber would in my opinion reduce actual effectiveness as the higher ammo cost would reduce the already minimal training available.
 
Have the Taliban not been using Enfields to shoot at our soldiers at long range?
Maybe we could learn from them and equip our soldiers with the .303Brit again! :sniper:
 
It doesn't matter what caliber you use. You can guarantee if someone has a hole in their lungs they aren't gonna live long. As for people saying 5.56 is underpowered, tell that to the deer and bear I shot last season. The bear dropped on the spot and the the deer took ten steps and dropped. I'll stop before this becomes a huge rant
 
I guess if I was the CDS and looking to improve performance I would be pushing to tie service members wages to their performance in annual physical fitness, and marksmanship testing.
 
Gunnerlove said:
I guess if I was the CDS and looking to improve performance I would be pushing to tie service members wages to their performance in annual physical fitness, and marksmanship testing.
Click to expand...

Hahaha! Now that would motivate all the junk and dead weight. You have my vote.
 
Gunnerlove said:
So you have some good examples of where playing wack-a-mole has resulted in a big old friendly, stable nation forming? Where making the public hate you more helped in the long run?
Where has the bigger hammer been the fix?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are missing the whole point.
I am not advocating playing whack-a-mole - counter-insurgency is whack-a-mole, and for the last 12 years it hasn't worked. You have to fight the problem as a whole, and start at the source - Saudi Arabia and Iran, which fund and inspire all that plagues us.

As for examples, the overarching goal should not be "stable nation forming", but defeating the enemy. If a stable friendly nation results, that's icing on the cake.

OK, let's see:
1) Japan:
Prior to getting nuked - violent and sadistic aggressor in region, hostile to West.
After getting nuked - friendly, docile, technologically innovative trading partner to West.

2) Germany:
Prior to getting bombed to smithereens and humiliated: - violent and sadistic aggressor in region, hostile to Allies.
After getting bombed to smithereens and humiliated: - friendly, docile, technologically innovative trading partner to Allies.

Notice how in the above 2 examples there was a stark absence of winning hearts and minds prior to obliterating the countries, economy, people (yes, civilians too), infrastructure and military?

As they say, to make an omelette you gotta break some eggs.

The outcome of these wars had vastly more to do with strategy and willpower than it did with calibre choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom