Small Arms and the soldier..
- Thread starter Max Power
- Start date
Sorry, my bad 
Here it is:
Small Arms and the Soldier:
The US Army’s intention to replace its entire family of 5.56 mm weapons will have repercussions for all future NATO small-arms calibres.
Anthony Williams reports
For the past quarter of a century, NATO has relied upon two different rifle/machine gun cartridges: the 7.62 x 51 mm and the 5.56 x 45 mm.
The US Army’s present intention to replace its entire family of 5.56 mm weapons with new equipment provides a rare opportunity to reconsider that choice.
Evidence from recent conflicts questions the effectiveness of the 5.56 mm round and suggests that the opportunity for a review should not be ignored. What is clear is that the decisions taken by the US over the next few months will determine NATO small-arms calibres for the foreseeable future.
New small arms for the 21st century
The US Army uses two distinct families of weapons in 5.56 x 45 mm calibre: the M16 rifle and the derivative M4 carbine form one group, the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon the other. The M249, a licence-produced and much-modifiedversion of the highly successful Belgian FN Herstal Minimi light machine gun, was purchased in the 1980s and the guns are now wearing out and need replacing. The US Army has also decided to replace the M16/M4 f a m i l y with a different design, for more complex reasons.
The constant search for a more effective infantry weapon led in the 1990s to the concept of small-calibre high-explosive fragmentation grenade shells designed to burst over the heads of their targets, thereby permitting the attack of troops in defilade, ie hiding behind cover. Studies indicated a dramatic improvement in the effectiveness of small-arms fire. Ensuring that the shells explode at precisely the correct point involves some sophisticated technology. This includes a laser rangefinder coupled to a ballistic computer linked to the sights to ensure that the user aims the weapon accurately. The computer also provides data to electronically set the shell’s time fuze as it is fired so that it detonates after travelling the correct distance.
Two different weapon projects were initiated to use the new high-explosive airburst technology. One was the Objective Crew Served Weapon, now known as the Advanced CrewServed Weapon and designated XM307; this is a machine gun in 25 mm calibre. The other was the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, also known as the Selective Assault Battle Rifle and designated XM29. The XM29 was intended to be a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic grenade launcher in 20 mm calibre and to incorporate a compact, lightweight 5.56 mm rifle as a back-up weapon. The development team, led by Alliant Techsystems Corp, included Heckler & Koch (H&K) of Germany, which won the contest to supply the 20 mm and 5.56 mm gun mechanisms.
The XM29 ran into difficulties when it proved impossible to reduce the weight any lower than 18 lbs (8.2 kg), the target being15 lbs. A decision was therefore taken to continue separate development of the rifle and grenade launcher elements, while at the same time increasing the calibre of the grenades to 25 mm to improve their effectiveness against troops in body armour. Development of the grenade launcher is proceeding as the XM25, while the rifle element was redesignated XM8.
The XM8 design is based on H&K’s successful G36 rifle, with various modifications required by the US Army. It is clearly a much lower-risk project than the grenade launcher and is already close to maturity; plans to carry out arge-scale troop trials have been drawn up. The XM8 is of modular construction and barrels of different lengths and weights can be interchanged to meet tactical needs, producing carbine, compact carbine, sharpshooter, and – with a long heavy barrel, a bipod and a largecapacity magazine – an automatic rifle. However, it was decided to include a belt-fed light machine gun variant in the programme, instead of the automatic rifle, to replace the M249. In view of this change another competition
was announced for the new family of weapons rather than automatically selecting the XM8. A request for proposals was published in May 2005 with a timescale of 180 days in which to respond with written submissions along with four examples of each variant for testing. In July this was superseded by a further decision to suspend the competition in order to consider the needs of all of the services, not just the army. To complicate matters further, a different competition has been running in parallel for a new rifle for US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) forces under the designation Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR or SCR). Here the emphasis is different, as SOCOM wants the ability to use different calibres, so the rifle is planned to be in two versions: SCAR-L (light) and SCAR-H (heavy) so that it can use 5.56 x 45 mm, 7.62 x 39 mm, 7.62 x 51 mm and potentially other cartridges. Like the XM8, the gun is modular and can be rapidly adapted to different purposes. This competition was won by FN Herstal in late 2004 with a much-modified development of its established FNC rifle. It seems likely that this weapon and its derivatives will be a major competitor for the XM8 once the contest for the rifle/machine gun family is restarted.
A change of cartridge?
None of the above US developments suggest any wish to change from the existing NATO cartridges (the ability of the SCAR to be adapted to 7.62 x 39 mm being concerned with the common availability of this ammunition in areas where Special Forces operate). Official reports from Iraq express general satisfaction with the 5.56 mm cartridge. Despite this, there has been concern among sections of the US military ever since the operations Somalia in 1993 that it is less than adequate. AUS Marine Corps sergeant who was asked to prepare a report on the performance of his equipment in Iraq said of the 5.56 mm: “The round is too fast, too small and too stabilised. It cannot compete with the 7.62 mm fired by Warsaw Pact weapons.” Another comment made to the author by an experienced US soldier is that “the 5.56 mm often only does the job if you shoot each man several times”. Such soldiers state that selecting a more effective cartridge should have a high priority. Concerns over the 5.56 mm cartridge are being exacerbated by the US Army’s growing preference for the short-barrelled M4 carbine over the M16 rifle: a result of the fact that the carbine is much handier in confined vehicles and in urban fighting. The problems occur because the 5.56 mm bullet gains much of its lethality from two features: one is that (like all pointed bullets) it tumbles on impact, increasing the size of the wound channel; the other is that it often breaks up while tumbling, sending fragments through the body and increasing the severity of the wound.However, with the standard 4 g NATO SS109 bullet (designated M855 in US production), this lattereffect only happens at high-impact velocities. From the 508 mm barrel of the M16, the fragmentation effect lasts out to 150 m to 200 m but the short (368 mm) barrel of the M4 develops a lower-muzzle velocity, pulling the fragmentation limit down to 50 m to 100 m. It is therefore surprising that the proposed standard version of the XM8 was to be the carbine with a barrel only 318 mm long, from which fragmentation is only likely to occur at point-blank range, if at all. The logical answer to the need for a compact weapon with a long barrel to preserve effectiveness is of course to adopt a rifle in bullpup configuration, as other armies are increasingly doing.
The Chinese QBZ-95, Israeli Tavor TAR-21, Singaporean SAR-21 and Belgian FN F2000 have all recently joined the established French FAMAS, British SA80 and highly successful Austrian Steyr AUG. However, US Army doctrine appears to be opposed to considering a bullpup rifle, which rules out that approach to improving effectiveness.
Maximise lethality
Concerns within the US military about the 5.56 mm cartridge have spread beyond individualcomplaints. A group within SOCOM has promoted the development of a new cartridgethat could replace the 5.56 mm: the 6.8 x 43 mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge (SPC).This fires a larger and heavier (7.45 g) bullet, which has proved to be considerably more effectivein tests even when fired from carbine-length barrels. It has been specifically designed to maximise lethality within normal rifle ranges of up to 300 m, although in fact the trajectory and terminal effects rival those of the 7.62 x 51 mm M80 ball out to 500 m. A rival approach has been the fielding in limited numbers of the new 5.56 mm Mk 262 cartridge, with a heavier (5 g) bullet designed originally for long-range target shooting. This not only has a better long-range performance than the SS109/M855, it also fragments out to longer ranges. However, at 600 m the remaining energy of the 6.8 mm bullet is over 40 per cent greater than that of the Mk 262. Despite this power, the recoil of the 6.8 mm is much less compared to the 7.62 x 51 mm and the cartridge is compact enough to fit into adapted 5.56 mm weapons. It has reportedly been combat-tested in Iraq inmodified M16s with impressive results, although confirmation is hard to obtain.
New challenger
More recently, a challenger to the 6.8 mm has emerged in the form of the 6.5 mm Grendel from Alexander Arms. This is an attempt to match the merits of the 6.8 mm while providing even better long-range performance good enough to completely replace the 7.62 x 51 mm.The 6.8 mm Remington SPC is limited to relatively short bullets to fit within the maximum cartridge length of 5.56 mm weapons, so the Grendel has a shorter (39 mm) and fatter case, leaving room for longer, low-drag bullets, which retain their velocity out to long ranges. Bullets of up to 9.3 g have been tested; with this loading the remaining velocity and energy at 1,000m match the long-range 7.62 mm M118LR NATO round and are distinctly superior to the standard M80 7.62 mm ball. However, the optimum choice for general-purpose use appears to be a bullet of around 8 g, which matches the M80’s trajectory. The 6.5 mm Grendel is at an earlier stage of development than the 6.8 mm Remington SPC, however, and has not been tested as extensively. One of the penalties of switching to a more powerful round has already been mentioned: the recoil will be heavier. However, the recoil generated by the 6.8 mm or 6.5 mm is similar to that ofthe 7.62 x 39 mm AK-47 round, which has been successfully used in automatic weapons for over half a century, so it is clearly manageable. Another is that the cartridge cases are slightly fatter. The 6.8 mm case is based on the old .30 Remington hunting round of 10.6 mm rather than 9.5 mm diameter, which reduces magazine capacity; a magazine similar in size to the standard 30-round 5.56 mm one will take about 28 rounds of 6.8 mm. A third drawback is that the cartridge is heavier, so fewer rounds can be carried for a given weight, although the force of that argument is much reduced if it is necessary to fire more 5.56 mm rounds to achieve the same effect. The 6.5 mm Grendel round is fatter still (it actually has the same 11.2 mm base diameter as the 7.62 x 39 mm), so only about 25 rounds will fit into a standard-sized magazine. The ammunition is also slightly heavier than the 6.8 mm if heavy, long-range bullets are used.
However, in the longer term it has more potential to replace the 7.62 x 51 mm and its weapons as well as the 5.56 x 45 mm family. With regard to developments in non-NATO European countries, it is interesting to note that although the Russians, inspired by the early reputation of the 5.56 x 45 mm, introduced their 5.45 x 39 mm cartridge in the AK-74 some three decades ago, this has also acquired a patchy reputation.
Some users prefer the old 7.62 x 39 mm, which is still being offered in new weapons. The latest Russian rifle, the 5.45 x 39 mm AN-94, utilises a complex mechanism to provide an extremely fast two-round burst, apparently to ensure that at normal ranges two bullets will strike the target rather than one. The Chinese recently adopted a 5.8 x 42 mm round in the QBZ-95 issued to elite troops, which is claimed to have a long-range performance superior to both the 5.45 x 39 mm and the 5.56 x 45 mm, although the differences are marginal as the 5.8 mm cartridge, despite having more case capacity, is loaded to a lower pressure.What would be the penalties if the US (and presumably NATO at some point) were to decide to adopt a more powerful cartridge like the 6.8 mm Remington SPC or 6.5 mm Grendel? Normally, such a change would be extremely expensive due to the investment in existing weapons and ammunition.
However, the USArmy, joined probably by the other services, is proposing to replace all of its 5.56 mm small arms and does not have large stockpiles of 5.56 mm ammunition – indeed, they recently suffered a shortfall due to high expenditure in Iraq. There is therefore a window of opportunity to consider the replacement of the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge before the new rifle competition is reopened, during which time it would seem sensible to carry out exhaustive tests of the 6.8 mm and 6.5 mm rounds against the 5.56 mm Mk 262 before reaching a conclusion about thefuture calibre. One thing is certain: if the US eventually orders a new family of weapons, whichever cartridge is chosen will be in service for decades to come.
Anthony G Williams is co-editor of Jane’s
Ammunition Handbook and co-author of
‘Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern
Military Rifle and its Ammunition’
Here it is:
Small Arms and the Soldier:
The US Army’s intention to replace its entire family of 5.56 mm weapons will have repercussions for all future NATO small-arms calibres.
Anthony Williams reports
For the past quarter of a century, NATO has relied upon two different rifle/machine gun cartridges: the 7.62 x 51 mm and the 5.56 x 45 mm.
The US Army’s present intention to replace its entire family of 5.56 mm weapons with new equipment provides a rare opportunity to reconsider that choice.
Evidence from recent conflicts questions the effectiveness of the 5.56 mm round and suggests that the opportunity for a review should not be ignored. What is clear is that the decisions taken by the US over the next few months will determine NATO small-arms calibres for the foreseeable future.
New small arms for the 21st century
The US Army uses two distinct families of weapons in 5.56 x 45 mm calibre: the M16 rifle and the derivative M4 carbine form one group, the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon the other. The M249, a licence-produced and much-modifiedversion of the highly successful Belgian FN Herstal Minimi light machine gun, was purchased in the 1980s and the guns are now wearing out and need replacing. The US Army has also decided to replace the M16/M4 f a m i l y with a different design, for more complex reasons.
The constant search for a more effective infantry weapon led in the 1990s to the concept of small-calibre high-explosive fragmentation grenade shells designed to burst over the heads of their targets, thereby permitting the attack of troops in defilade, ie hiding behind cover. Studies indicated a dramatic improvement in the effectiveness of small-arms fire. Ensuring that the shells explode at precisely the correct point involves some sophisticated technology. This includes a laser rangefinder coupled to a ballistic computer linked to the sights to ensure that the user aims the weapon accurately. The computer also provides data to electronically set the shell’s time fuze as it is fired so that it detonates after travelling the correct distance.
Two different weapon projects were initiated to use the new high-explosive airburst technology. One was the Objective Crew Served Weapon, now known as the Advanced CrewServed Weapon and designated XM307; this is a machine gun in 25 mm calibre. The other was the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, also known as the Selective Assault Battle Rifle and designated XM29. The XM29 was intended to be a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic grenade launcher in 20 mm calibre and to incorporate a compact, lightweight 5.56 mm rifle as a back-up weapon. The development team, led by Alliant Techsystems Corp, included Heckler & Koch (H&K) of Germany, which won the contest to supply the 20 mm and 5.56 mm gun mechanisms.
The XM29 ran into difficulties when it proved impossible to reduce the weight any lower than 18 lbs (8.2 kg), the target being15 lbs. A decision was therefore taken to continue separate development of the rifle and grenade launcher elements, while at the same time increasing the calibre of the grenades to 25 mm to improve their effectiveness against troops in body armour. Development of the grenade launcher is proceeding as the XM25, while the rifle element was redesignated XM8.
The XM8 design is based on H&K’s successful G36 rifle, with various modifications required by the US Army. It is clearly a much lower-risk project than the grenade launcher and is already close to maturity; plans to carry out arge-scale troop trials have been drawn up. The XM8 is of modular construction and barrels of different lengths and weights can be interchanged to meet tactical needs, producing carbine, compact carbine, sharpshooter, and – with a long heavy barrel, a bipod and a largecapacity magazine – an automatic rifle. However, it was decided to include a belt-fed light machine gun variant in the programme, instead of the automatic rifle, to replace the M249. In view of this change another competition
was announced for the new family of weapons rather than automatically selecting the XM8. A request for proposals was published in May 2005 with a timescale of 180 days in which to respond with written submissions along with four examples of each variant for testing. In July this was superseded by a further decision to suspend the competition in order to consider the needs of all of the services, not just the army. To complicate matters further, a different competition has been running in parallel for a new rifle for US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) forces under the designation Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR or SCR). Here the emphasis is different, as SOCOM wants the ability to use different calibres, so the rifle is planned to be in two versions: SCAR-L (light) and SCAR-H (heavy) so that it can use 5.56 x 45 mm, 7.62 x 39 mm, 7.62 x 51 mm and potentially other cartridges. Like the XM8, the gun is modular and can be rapidly adapted to different purposes. This competition was won by FN Herstal in late 2004 with a much-modified development of its established FNC rifle. It seems likely that this weapon and its derivatives will be a major competitor for the XM8 once the contest for the rifle/machine gun family is restarted.
A change of cartridge?
None of the above US developments suggest any wish to change from the existing NATO cartridges (the ability of the SCAR to be adapted to 7.62 x 39 mm being concerned with the common availability of this ammunition in areas where Special Forces operate). Official reports from Iraq express general satisfaction with the 5.56 mm cartridge. Despite this, there has been concern among sections of the US military ever since the operations Somalia in 1993 that it is less than adequate. AUS Marine Corps sergeant who was asked to prepare a report on the performance of his equipment in Iraq said of the 5.56 mm: “The round is too fast, too small and too stabilised. It cannot compete with the 7.62 mm fired by Warsaw Pact weapons.” Another comment made to the author by an experienced US soldier is that “the 5.56 mm often only does the job if you shoot each man several times”. Such soldiers state that selecting a more effective cartridge should have a high priority. Concerns over the 5.56 mm cartridge are being exacerbated by the US Army’s growing preference for the short-barrelled M4 carbine over the M16 rifle: a result of the fact that the carbine is much handier in confined vehicles and in urban fighting. The problems occur because the 5.56 mm bullet gains much of its lethality from two features: one is that (like all pointed bullets) it tumbles on impact, increasing the size of the wound channel; the other is that it often breaks up while tumbling, sending fragments through the body and increasing the severity of the wound.However, with the standard 4 g NATO SS109 bullet (designated M855 in US production), this lattereffect only happens at high-impact velocities. From the 508 mm barrel of the M16, the fragmentation effect lasts out to 150 m to 200 m but the short (368 mm) barrel of the M4 develops a lower-muzzle velocity, pulling the fragmentation limit down to 50 m to 100 m. It is therefore surprising that the proposed standard version of the XM8 was to be the carbine with a barrel only 318 mm long, from which fragmentation is only likely to occur at point-blank range, if at all. The logical answer to the need for a compact weapon with a long barrel to preserve effectiveness is of course to adopt a rifle in bullpup configuration, as other armies are increasingly doing.
The Chinese QBZ-95, Israeli Tavor TAR-21, Singaporean SAR-21 and Belgian FN F2000 have all recently joined the established French FAMAS, British SA80 and highly successful Austrian Steyr AUG. However, US Army doctrine appears to be opposed to considering a bullpup rifle, which rules out that approach to improving effectiveness.
Maximise lethality
Concerns within the US military about the 5.56 mm cartridge have spread beyond individualcomplaints. A group within SOCOM has promoted the development of a new cartridgethat could replace the 5.56 mm: the 6.8 x 43 mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge (SPC).This fires a larger and heavier (7.45 g) bullet, which has proved to be considerably more effectivein tests even when fired from carbine-length barrels. It has been specifically designed to maximise lethality within normal rifle ranges of up to 300 m, although in fact the trajectory and terminal effects rival those of the 7.62 x 51 mm M80 ball out to 500 m. A rival approach has been the fielding in limited numbers of the new 5.56 mm Mk 262 cartridge, with a heavier (5 g) bullet designed originally for long-range target shooting. This not only has a better long-range performance than the SS109/M855, it also fragments out to longer ranges. However, at 600 m the remaining energy of the 6.8 mm bullet is over 40 per cent greater than that of the Mk 262. Despite this power, the recoil of the 6.8 mm is much less compared to the 7.62 x 51 mm and the cartridge is compact enough to fit into adapted 5.56 mm weapons. It has reportedly been combat-tested in Iraq inmodified M16s with impressive results, although confirmation is hard to obtain.
New challenger
More recently, a challenger to the 6.8 mm has emerged in the form of the 6.5 mm Grendel from Alexander Arms. This is an attempt to match the merits of the 6.8 mm while providing even better long-range performance good enough to completely replace the 7.62 x 51 mm.The 6.8 mm Remington SPC is limited to relatively short bullets to fit within the maximum cartridge length of 5.56 mm weapons, so the Grendel has a shorter (39 mm) and fatter case, leaving room for longer, low-drag bullets, which retain their velocity out to long ranges. Bullets of up to 9.3 g have been tested; with this loading the remaining velocity and energy at 1,000m match the long-range 7.62 mm M118LR NATO round and are distinctly superior to the standard M80 7.62 mm ball. However, the optimum choice for general-purpose use appears to be a bullet of around 8 g, which matches the M80’s trajectory. The 6.5 mm Grendel is at an earlier stage of development than the 6.8 mm Remington SPC, however, and has not been tested as extensively. One of the penalties of switching to a more powerful round has already been mentioned: the recoil will be heavier. However, the recoil generated by the 6.8 mm or 6.5 mm is similar to that ofthe 7.62 x 39 mm AK-47 round, which has been successfully used in automatic weapons for over half a century, so it is clearly manageable. Another is that the cartridge cases are slightly fatter. The 6.8 mm case is based on the old .30 Remington hunting round of 10.6 mm rather than 9.5 mm diameter, which reduces magazine capacity; a magazine similar in size to the standard 30-round 5.56 mm one will take about 28 rounds of 6.8 mm. A third drawback is that the cartridge is heavier, so fewer rounds can be carried for a given weight, although the force of that argument is much reduced if it is necessary to fire more 5.56 mm rounds to achieve the same effect. The 6.5 mm Grendel round is fatter still (it actually has the same 11.2 mm base diameter as the 7.62 x 39 mm), so only about 25 rounds will fit into a standard-sized magazine. The ammunition is also slightly heavier than the 6.8 mm if heavy, long-range bullets are used.
However, in the longer term it has more potential to replace the 7.62 x 51 mm and its weapons as well as the 5.56 x 45 mm family. With regard to developments in non-NATO European countries, it is interesting to note that although the Russians, inspired by the early reputation of the 5.56 x 45 mm, introduced their 5.45 x 39 mm cartridge in the AK-74 some three decades ago, this has also acquired a patchy reputation.
Some users prefer the old 7.62 x 39 mm, which is still being offered in new weapons. The latest Russian rifle, the 5.45 x 39 mm AN-94, utilises a complex mechanism to provide an extremely fast two-round burst, apparently to ensure that at normal ranges two bullets will strike the target rather than one. The Chinese recently adopted a 5.8 x 42 mm round in the QBZ-95 issued to elite troops, which is claimed to have a long-range performance superior to both the 5.45 x 39 mm and the 5.56 x 45 mm, although the differences are marginal as the 5.8 mm cartridge, despite having more case capacity, is loaded to a lower pressure.What would be the penalties if the US (and presumably NATO at some point) were to decide to adopt a more powerful cartridge like the 6.8 mm Remington SPC or 6.5 mm Grendel? Normally, such a change would be extremely expensive due to the investment in existing weapons and ammunition.
However, the USArmy, joined probably by the other services, is proposing to replace all of its 5.56 mm small arms and does not have large stockpiles of 5.56 mm ammunition – indeed, they recently suffered a shortfall due to high expenditure in Iraq. There is therefore a window of opportunity to consider the replacement of the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge before the new rifle competition is reopened, during which time it would seem sensible to carry out exhaustive tests of the 6.8 mm and 6.5 mm rounds against the 5.56 mm Mk 262 before reaching a conclusion about thefuture calibre. One thing is certain: if the US eventually orders a new family of weapons, whichever cartridge is chosen will be in service for decades to come.
Anthony G Williams is co-editor of Jane’s
Ammunition Handbook and co-author of
‘Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern
Military Rifle and its Ammunition’
peckerwood
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- PalePony, Yukon
diomedesbc
CGN Regular
- Location
- Calgary, AB
The evolution of Small-arms calibres sure is interesting. I wonder how soon we could see a change from the 5.56 x 45mm?
death-junky
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Moose Jaw SK
this is stupid smaller is not better when it comes to guns in the military.
i think the should go back to the to something like the 7.62X39 or 7.62X51 because if i was in the military and i was shooting at some one i would wont that bullet to go through what ever he is hiding behind and have the power to knock him down with the new small cartreges they breack up and loose there energy to fast and the are deflected as well quite easaly.
talk to ya all later
Riley
i think the should go back to the to something like the 7.62X39 or 7.62X51 because if i was in the military and i was shooting at some one i would wont that bullet to go through what ever he is hiding behind and have the power to knock him down with the new small cartreges they breack up and loose there energy to fast and the are deflected as well quite easaly.
talk to ya all later
Riley
peckerwood
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- PalePony, Yukon
Riley...the 5.56 has proved itself as a performer...a bullet that fragments into multiple pieces even in a full metal jacket. Plus it is helpful to not overload the soldier with heavier ammo where a lighter cartridge can just as easily give compareable performance. Plus...lighter ammo means more that can be carried.
The main issue with the 5.56 is simply the need for smaller rifles for confined spaces while still not losing performance in the cartridge due to a shorter barrel.
This what happens to a5.56 FMJ when it hits ballistic gelatin at muzzle velocity:
Recovered fragments from an M193 5.56mm at muzzle on ballistic gel
Fragmentation of FMJ 5.56mm at differing velocities
5.56mm on an orange...notice the immediate tumbling that facilitates the fragmentation
Also take note that many military operations occur where ther are civilians, and especially children. A 7.62mm does great damage to the body tissue of children should a stray bullet hit one...however the tissue of a child isn't as dense as the muscle tissue of an adult...This is an advantage as it usually results in a overpenetration of the bullet thereby transfering much less energy and less damage to the child.
Better a child that lived and was able to be saved than one killed which invariably leads to anger of the locals at such unwanted collateral damage. Angry parents are not a good thing when you are trying to help the people in whatever given theatre of operation
The main issue with the 5.56 is simply the need for smaller rifles for confined spaces while still not losing performance in the cartridge due to a shorter barrel.
This what happens to a5.56 FMJ when it hits ballistic gelatin at muzzle velocity:
Recovered fragments from an M193 5.56mm at muzzle on ballistic gel
Fragmentation of FMJ 5.56mm at differing velocities
5.56mm on an orange...notice the immediate tumbling that facilitates the fragmentation
Also take note that many military operations occur where ther are civilians, and especially children. A 7.62mm does great damage to the body tissue of children should a stray bullet hit one...however the tissue of a child isn't as dense as the muscle tissue of an adult...This is an advantage as it usually results in a overpenetration of the bullet thereby transfering much less energy and less damage to the child.
Better a child that lived and was able to be saved than one killed which invariably leads to anger of the locals at such unwanted collateral damage. Angry parents are not a good thing when you are trying to help the people in whatever given theatre of operation
Raider556 said:
I know for a fact there are "better" calibers out there. But the fact remains that even without huge ammo reserves, it would be MEGA expensive to either replace or rework the US armed forces' MILLIONS of SAWs and ARs to another caliber.
Think many billions of dollars I imagine.
With a Bush administration already tugging at the purse springs, I don't expect wide adoption of a new service rifle or caliber in the near future. I should think another 10 years AT LEAST before any real change occurs - though some specialized and/or SOCOM units might see the change sooner.
One interesting spin-off though is that if Colt looses the lucrative M4 carbine contract due to adoption of another rifle, that company will be forced to once again seek the favor of the civilian market. Would be nice to buy new Colt Match HBARs and LE6920's new off the shelf again... :lol:
Bushy and Armalite are nice and all, but nothing says "AR15" like a brand name Colt HBAR or "law enforcement only" M4 with a pony on the side. :wink:
Calum said:
So true!!!
And anyhow, it's not like the LIEberal gov't will jump to replace the C7/C8/C9 series weapons just because the wind of change blows in a different direction for a while south of the border... :roll:
Hell, our 1st gen Sea Kings have been obsolete for what? 35 years or so? And we still don't have Commorants (ie, EH-101 lite!) in use yet...
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet/skg_overview_e.asp
:roll:
The boys in green are lucky they are even getting the C7A2 modifications, let alone a new service rifle :!:
peckerwood said:
:?:
I dont know where you that info -
All BT bullets will yaw in mediums other than air - bullets fragment during yaw IF the forces on them are greater than the structural strength of the bullet jacket. In 5.56mm M193 55gr (Old US issue ammo) this happens at 2700fps in human tissue. In M855/C77/SS109 this happens between 2500 and 2700 fps.
Most 7.62 rounds have thicker jackets and due to their lower velocity do not fragment in flesh (the exception being the German 7.62mm that acts like a large 5.56mm round due to its thinner jacket).
All bullets can kill - however inside 200m 5.56mm does MORE damage to human tissue than 7.62mm NATO - 7.62x39 does very little tissue damage (same with 5.45x39) since they just yaw.
Outside 200m (as a general baseline) 7.62mm NATO will do more damage due to its lkarge dimater and longer length and thus larger crush damage to the permanent wound cavity.
