Skip to comments.Marines Working with the Army on 5.56mm Rifle Round Replacement
Posted on 04/12/2018 6:35:08 PM PDT by MtnClimber
NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. -- A senior Marine Corps official confirmed today that the service is lockstep with the Army's effort to search for a rifle round more potent than the current 5.56mm round.
For months, senior Army officials have been telling Congress that the current 5.56mm Enhanced Performance Round is not potent enough to penetrate enemy body armor plates similar to U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.
As a solution, the Army is experimenting with a plan to replace its M249 squad automatic weapon and M4 carbine with futuristic weapons that fire a 6.5mm case-telescoped round or something that falls between a 5.56mm and a 7.62mm round.
The Marine Corps, which recently decided to buy more M27 5.56mm Infantry Automatic Rifles, has not publically echoed the Army's concern with 5.56mm until now.
"We are working the Army; we have looked at the 6.5mm Creedmoor with the Army and [Special Operations Command]," Brig. Gen. Joseph Shrader, commander of Marine Corps Systems Command, told Military.com at the annual Sea-Air-Space exposition Wednesday.
"We are lockstep with them looking at a new round."
Shrader, however, said he did not know if the effort would mean a new infantry weapon for the Marine Corps.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
ROUGHLY a .243 with a slightly larger bullet caliber (6.5 vs 6.0mm).
Good choice. Great sectional density and BC making for good range. It will retain power at great range.
7.92 Mauser. Get the job done right the first time.
I also have a 6.5Grendel. I'm very impressed with the 6.5 rounds.
Yep. Got a K98 and a M48 in 7.92 (8mm Mauser).
7.62 x 51 NATO sounds like a good replacement to me.
No doubt the creedmore and grendel are fairly decent rounds. To be really effective I don’t you’d want do go below .264. You need a round that is capable of housing a tungsten penetrator, tracer capable with a velocity of no less than 2800 fps bullet weight needs to be a function of desired ballistic coefficient of your standard ball round. I expect such a round could be developed with a respectable weight savings over the 7.62 NATO. If staying with an AR type platform you might want to optimizer the receiver for such a .264 round and developing a really effective compensator as the recoil is going to be significantly higher than the 5.56. I maintain the 2800 fps should be the minimum in the standard rifle length barrel. That way re carbine length barrel would still offer respectable velocity. Just saying...
Ballistic coefficient has favored 6.5 bullets for a while. My garand weighs in at about nine pounds or more. Clip capacity 8. 6.5 Grendel about 7 pounds. 20 round 5.56 clip holds 16 with the right follower. Muzzle velocity is about the same. Bullet weight .30 cal. 168 grain 6.5 123 grain. Honestly I don t know whats the best. Going back wont work and changing all 5.56 rifle barrels and bolts and clips seems prohibitive. Then the supply of ammo to any new round. This whole issue is a bear that I am glad I dont have to wrestle with.
I could go with that too, or mixed 5.56 and 7.62 in normal troops. I would be in line for 7.62 or anything larger than 5.56 if I had the choice.
Case-telescoped ammunition means no more inexpensive quality brass for reloading.
Nothing wrong with their effectiveness. Their bulk and relative inefficiency are really all that anyone could hold against them.
There are no free lunches because of the physics involved, and no one cartridge will be able to "do it all." Heck, I have tried to find the "one gun" solution all my life, and I can't do it even with my limited set of parameters.
No argument there from me. The 6mm is great for long range and should be good against armor with the right bullet construction due to bullets available with good sectional density.
Fundamentally, those rounds were developed to knock down a cavalry horse at 600-800 yards when firing at massed formations. We can do better for modern needs.
I enjoy trying to find the perfect round but sure costs me a lot of money and butt chewings by my wife. Guess nothing is perfect. At least Im not having to rely on a superior to give me something to carry into a fight. Wearing a uniform leaves you dancing with the girl that invited you to the dance.
Sure. The 6.5 offers great BC and sectional density. The 140gr 6.5x55 punches way above its weight class.
Creed is vastly superior.
They’re a great round, excellent coefficient. That basically means they buck the wind much better and fly a lot nicer.
Weight limits what the soldiers can carry.
I never said it wasn’t.
My point was that they would have to change the standard platform completely. The Creedmore is too long for an AR-15 / M-16 platform.. They would have to go to an AR-10 or other longer platform.
The Grendel or Valkyrie would require only a barrel change and bolt face, be done by unit armorers, and still achieve their goals for Million$ instead of Billion$.
The logistics of changing the armed forces main battle rifle along with ammo is no small thing. John Garand brought the m1 to the military in .277. He was told it was the wrong caliber. The Ammo around the world for Army and Marines was 30-06. He change the rifle and brought it back. The Army accepted it, the Marines stuck to the 03. 1st Marines landed at Guadalcanal with the 03s. They were reinforced by the Army during the battle. The wounded dog faces left with 03s. some of jar heads still in the fight fought with garands the rest is history. The fact that Army and Marines are in the quest together is a good thing I think. But its a hell of a task.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.