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

Benito said:
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.
Click to expand...

The end state is what you are pointing at in the cases of both Germany and Japan and that was only achieved via economic aid following formal hostilities.
Cash, large piles of cash.
 
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...

The primary design of the MK262 and the MK318 projectile is not its terminal effects/ballistics nor is the open tip related to terminal ballistics primarily.

The PRIMARY design.

It is relating to the Hague and other factors but it's also very deeply dependant on specific wording. You may be surprised in the near future.

Regarding the effectiveness of the 5.56mm and CF army users, I'd also point a finger towards the fact that on average your basic soldier probably shoots 100 rounds a year on some half as*ed distance range of 5 rounds per exposure etc etc etc etc as a serious contributor to the lack of efficiency with a weapon firing 5.56mm cartridges instead of solely blaming the cartridge.

There are other factors that have been beaten to death but I'm sure this is another. It boils down to budget being spent on things other than ammunition for troops to train frequently enough to be very competent marksmen instead of just the bare minimum "check in the box" system that is at the core of every aspect of our military.......
 
Last edited:
Gunnerlove said:
The end state is what you are pointing at in the cases of both Germany and Japan and that was only achieved via economic aid following formal hostilities.
Cash, large piles of cash.
Click to expand...

Keeping in the spirit of the OP's calibre-related post, I am not an expert on ballistics, but just like anything, there is no ideal tool for every job. Likewise, there is no ideal calibre for every job. Each war/battle will be better suited to some calibres, and less so to others. Since armies cannot constantly swap calibres due to the logistical nightmares that would entail, a compromise is needed that is relatively cheap, in ample supply and can do a little bit of each of the main things it needs to do.
As far as rifles go, 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 are pretty damn good, and cover a large part of the spectrum. For more extreme cases, there is always .50 BMG, .338 Lapua Magnum (I have no idea if the CF use this).

OP, you specified unlimited funds in your hypothetical scenario, so I'll roll with that.
Even with unlimited $$$, I wouldn't go for too many calibres for general issue service rifles, and the ones I would choose would be significantly different in cartridge size and weight (to reduce likelihood of Kabooms), and range/capability (so as not to end up with a silly situation like having 2 similar calibres in the supply chain).
So, let's go with .300 BLK for general service, since we are keeping the M4/AR/C7 family, and 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 doesn't jive with that platform very well. The only reason I say that is because of the stipulation of unlimited funds. This means setting up shop of mass production of 300 BLK.
This provides good punch for common engagement distances.
Keep 7.62x51 for MG's, DMR's and the like. Decently accurate and very good punch out to, what, 800 meters or so?
.338 Lapua Magnum for sniper rifles. Very accurate and capable out to the limits of optic range.

But even with the perfect small arms program, there is no replacement for the willingness to project force.

By the way, Germany and Japan are success stories not because of foreign aid, but because their entire system was crushed, and then built up again by the West. We didn't just give them money and let them decide how to spend it. Hell, the Japanese constitution was written by the US. That's the way to do things.
 
Paladin308 said:
In terms of a battle cartridge out of the ones here I would pick 6.5 Grendel. Its long range performance is superior to 7.62x51 while still being lighter. It does however require a longer barrel to work efficiently, so a bullpup rifle would be ideal. For CQB the 5.56x45 is not a terrible cartridge, but .300BLK or 6.8SPC would be superior choices as they function better out of shorter rifles, with an edge to .300BLK as it's easier to suppress.

As for the 5.56/5.45 comparison, the cartridges are functionally near identical. Both launch similar weight projectiles at similar velocities. 5.56 achieves slightly higher velocities, but 5.45 has the 7n6 projectile which gives superior terminal performance over m193 and m855.
Click to expand...

Say 6.5G using an 18 inch mtar aka x95 (its a tavor with ar - like ergo's and better smaller design)

I dont get why the isreali's are using 12 inch mtars for regular infantry... Blows my mind when a 18 inch mtar is smaller or the same size as 14.5 m4
 
curseyou said:
Wasn't this discussion at the heart of the scar program's requirement for multi calibre ability. The goal being to have a single platform to adapt to different environments, thus different tactics.
Click to expand...


It was an article on the S.A.S and the use of the SCAR heavy required by the S.A.S AND me watching videos and talking to some people complaining that the 556 and the m4 and c7s were not adequate for most of the long range skrimishes in afganistan.

I know that their is no 1 tool for every job, BUT i'm talking about if you had pick a round to be used as the main all purpose intermediate carteridge. I guess .308 could be considered for this, even though now its not an intermediate carteridge but it was used as one not too long ago.

Perhaps 556 is still the best, even considering you may be in conflicts that in places like afghanistan where most of the small arms fire wasn't getting the job done it was more so waiting behind cover for a sniper or an aircraft to bomb a tree- line.

I was thinking using a round that could perform very well in longer barrels, using a bullpup type weapon to keep it in a handy size. Basicly the opposite of 300 blackout, where it is pointless to use in barrels over 12inches as your not gaining much velocity. 556 actually already does this as it was designed to be used in 20 inch barrels and you actually lose a lot more velocity when you go under 18 inches, which is why 300 blackout was a carteridge that actually has a good niche for pdw type weapons and 10'inch barreled ar15's.
 
Last edited:
6.8 spc2. Good ranve5 and accuracy and better put down power than 5.56. Alternatively Some sort or Gauss rifle that can accelerate a bird shot size round to 2km/s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom