New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56

Army Times ^ | May 7, 2017 | Todd South

[re_tail20]

After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, soldiers could get a peek at a new prototype assault rifle that fires a larger round by 2020.

Army researchers are testing half a dozen ammunition variants in “intermediate calibers,” which falls between the current 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm rounds, to create a new light machine gun and inform the next-generation individual assault rifle/round combo.

The weapon designs being tested will be “unconventional,” officials said, and likely not one that is currently commercially available.

Some intermediate calibers being tested include the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA as well as other non-commercial intermediate calibers, including cased telescoped ammo, Army officials said.

If selected by senior leaders, the weapon could resolve a close-quarters weapons debate about calibers that critics say dates to the 1920s and has influenced military small arms ever since.

If successful, the new rifle and round combination would give troops a weapon they can carry with about the same number of rounds as the current 5.56 mm but with greater range and accuracy in their firepower — with little change in weight.

The new rifle would likely replace the M16/M4 platform, which has been in the hands of troops since the 1960s and undergone multiple modifications and upgrades.

Maj. Jason Bohannon, lethality branch chief at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Matt Walker, deputy director of the branch and a retired command sergeant major, spoke recently to Army Times about broad efforts in small arms weapons research and development.

‘Better option’

Work on the new round began in recent years, Bohannon said, and much of the next steps in developing both the round and rifle will be driven by the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration...

[re_tail20]

What’s new this time is that it seems, after decades of resistance, the Army is finally giving in and actively going after something better.

[butlerweave]

The British planned this before the 7.62/5.56 even showed up ,but the US refused ,D’oh

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

If I remember correctly, didn’t the British want a .17 cal after WW II?

[Anti-Bubba182]

I think it was a .270 cal, but the US wanted a 30 caliber.

[FlipWilson]

The US wanted short action regardless of caliber.

[Scrambler Bob]

They are almost back to 6.5 x 55, except it’s long action.

[1Old Pro]

Here’s hoping for a revival of WIN.348, so I can buy ammo for my model 17

[Ancesthntr]

What I’d like to see is something in the 6.5mm class - it could be the .260 Remington, the 6.5 Grendel, the 6.5 Creedmoor - I don’t really care, ANY of them would be vastly superior to the 5.56. You are talking about longer, more aerodynamic and heavier bullets, which are perfect for longer range, as well as for penetration. Given that optics are steadily improving, having a round that can reliably deal with targets past 600 yards is a must. Additionally, with a heavier and larger diameter bullet, you are going to have more first-round kills, which will both increase our troops’ surviveability AND reduce the need for quite so much in the way of an ammo load.

Oh, and I’m also looking forward to a VAST, VAST supply of M16s, M4s and 5.56 ammo and magazines being dumped on the market...now, if we can only get that damned NFA removed, or at least get Section 922(o) removed from the law.

BY THE WAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP: selling the existing stock of front-line guns, ammo and magazines will help to pay for those newer, better rifles. Let’s get that done, ASAP!

[saleman]

There are plenty of currently available 6.5 rounds. And they would be an improvement IMO. And I’m an admitted M4 fanboy.

The polymer casing is interesting.

There is no way around it though. Heavier bullets, same or greater velocity. More recoil.

[saleman]

Also if the services went to the rifle length action/barrel the range of the 5.56 would be considerably better.

I don’t think the improved range of a 6.5 would be very impressive out of a 14.5” barrel.

Gotta look up some ballistics. But I don’t think a 6.5 carbine would be much, if any, better than a 20” barrel 5.56. I’m guessing....

[shanover]

Good stuff and sometimes the Army gets it right. Now if they can get their scout helicopter situation right.

[MCF]

Why not the 6.8 SPC-II

[Jack Black]

Why not the 6.8 SPC-II

Good idea. Or what about the .277 Wolverine - which *almost* duplicats 6.8 SPC ballistics but does so with a necked up .223, so old brass can be used, does not require a new bolt face, and does not require new magazines.

Of course that's too simple an answer. A true intermediate cartridge should not be based on either the 5.56mm length or the 7.62mm length case (which zillions of actions are built for) but for something completely new!

Why? I don't know. But I just predict that is where they go with it.

How about the .250 Savage?

Left to right: 5.56, .250 Savage, .30-06.

And here is the .300 Savaage (same basic case) next to a .308.

It's a great old cartridge beloved by deer and antelope hunters out West. When I first moved to Oregon/Washington they used to have a lot of old Model 99's for sale in .300 Savage and .250 Savage -- now they have mostly been snapped up and you don't see the guns much, but local stores still mostly stock .250 Savage.

A friend had a Remington Custom Shop XP (short bolt-action pistol) built in one because he claimed it was the ultimate round for the 14" barrel on the gun, and anything larger would just waste powder. (In that or a similar bore size.)

[Jack Black]

Left: .308 (7.62x51mm) Right: .300 Savage.

A true intermediate!

[Nakota]

Love the 6.5x55 Swedish. They got it right the first time.

[schurmann]

“If I remember correctly, didn’t the British want a .17 cal after WW II?”

Not immediately.

UK developed the 280 British, a 7mm cartridge with a case about the same length as 250 Savage, with head size the same as US 30-06. Not a reduced-power round like the Nazi 7.92x33mm nor the Soviet 7.62x39mm, it fired a 140 gr bullet to some 2540 ft/sec, producing more kinetic energy than 7.35mm Italian or 30-30, even late period service loads of 7x57 Mauser. They developed a compact bullpup rifle (EM-2) and a very neat machine gun to fire it.

The United States (NATO’s 5,000 pound gorilla) insisted on adopting a “full power” rifle cartridge (7.62x51 NATO duplicates performance of the final US 30-06 loading, 30 Ball M2 at the muzzle, and leaves it behind downrange ... Ball M2 utilized a 153gr flat-base bullet, while 7.62mm NATO Ball M80 utilized a 148gr boat-tail bullet).

The EM2 and UK machine gun were unable to handle 7.62 NATO. They chucked their designs and opted for FN’s FAL was (sized to handle 7.92x33 and could have been modified to handle 280 British).

Mulishly, the United States also refused to adopt the FAL.

The British did not give up entirely: they worked on a 6.25mm bullet loaded into the 280 case in the late 1960s, but dropped it to develop the 4.85mm round (17 caliber). It was intended to be fired in another bullpup rifle; the 4.85 was dropped in 1979, when NATO tests found promise in FN’s SS109 loading of 5.56x45mm. The British rifle then in development was rechambered to 5.56x45mm, and was adopted as the L85 Individual Weapon. The cartridge became the new NATO round.

The discovery of the “ideal” cartridge is not very likely. Circumstances of combat vary too greatly, and constraints are numerous and strenuous. What works well in one situation will fail in another.

Success becomes even less likely when we recall that the US Army and US Marines refuse to agree on the definition of “firepower” (the Army say it’s “shots per minute;” the Marines like “hits per minute”). Severe and thoroughgoing disagreements on the best caliber go back before the year 1800, when the British were armed with 75 caliber smoothbores, and the French used 69 caliber smoothbores.

[schurmann]

“...even late period service loads of 7x57 Mauser.”

CORRECTION: should read “...close to late period service loads of 7x57 Mauser as adopted in Mexico and some other Central and South American nations.”

[MCF]

The advantages of the 6.8 over the 250 Savage is that the 6.8 can still use the M16 lower and upper wth only a bolt and barrel change. If they went with the AR10 platform my vote would be for the 7mm-08.

[aposiopetic]

ping