Posted on 11/15/2005 2:32:39 AM PST by holymoly
November 15, 2005: The U.S. Army’s cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else. While the 5.56mm bullet was OK when used in an automatic weapon, it is much less useful when you have so many troops who know how to shoot, and can hit targets just as easily with single shots. In addition to better shooting skills, the troops also have much better sights, both for day and night use. It’s much more effective to fire less often, if you have troops who can do that and hit what they are shooting at with the first shot. Most American troops can.
Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls. The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action.
In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back. There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver. Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
The other big complaint about the M16 is it’s sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the “dust sensitivity” problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round.
A decision on the army’s new assault rifle will probably come sooner, rather than later, because the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are making a lot of Internet noise over the issue.
Cool!
I'm a bit of a 6.5 Grendel fan myself!
http://www.65grendel.com/
That's why I also like 5.56 for "TSHTF" scenarios. We will not have an ammo truck following us. What we got we got, and no mo'.
Unfortunately for your enthusiasm, there are two versions of 6.5, and the military interest is not in the Grendel.
I see you've met my dad :) He got out of the USMC after Korea, got his degree through the GI Bill, and got comissioned in the USAF. I'm proud to have had him swear me into active duty, years and years ago.
I won't argue that the M16 series needs its detail cleaning to work but it will work well when maintained. For those who are determined to have a new weapon, the FN will not make them happy but it is likely the most user friendly, fuss free rifle in the world next to the AK/SKS type weapons. The FN, as a cost measure, is produced in a 5.56 version as well as 7.62. The 7.62 can be re-chambered to a lot of other calibers very easily. For the 6.8mm fans, there is the 7mm Mauser that has been kicking about for a number of years. If you want holes in things, the 7mm will make them more readily than the fatter 7.62 designs. If we stopped with the effort to make the M16 series rifle an 800 meter weapon and stopped expecting great things when the barrel is chopped to 16 inches folks would not be having the current problems. If you want short with a thump, there is always the M3 sub machine gun.
I just received that in an e-mail forward today. Interesting stuff.
It shoots through schools.
The M16 put on a lot of weight in recent years. The recent heavy barrel versions weigh about the same as an M14 with fibreglass stock, about nine pounds and change.
6.5 PPC??
Either of the 6.5s or the 6.8 SPC will make for great rifles. I wonder, however, if the CQB advantages of the 6.8SPC are of any value in the real world, and whether or not they outway the ability to make an M-16 type rifle effective to 1000 meters.
The Grendel has something like twice the muzzel energy of the 6.8 past 600 meters (depending on load)
In the M16 & M16A1, the rifling made 1 full turn in 12 inches. This was sufficient to stabilize the 52 to 55 grain bullet in flight. Once the bullet hit something, it lost stability and tumbled and fragmented. The bullets lost accuracy at longer ranges, e.g. 500 meters.
To increase the long range effectiveness of the M16 series rifles, the projectile weight was increased to 60-62 grains and as a result became longer. This served to let the bullet retain energy over a longer range but required a much sharper pitch to the rifling which was increased to 1 turn in 7 inches of bore length.
Now, the bullet is very stable and retains accuracy and energy over great ranges; 500 to even 1000 meters. Unfortunately, it is so stable that it no longer "tumbles" on contact and causes the legendary wounds of the Vietnam era. Also, a round intended to achieve 3000 feet per second muzzle velocity from a 20 inch barrel looses lots of steam when fired from a 16 inch barrel and as a result, a lot of energy.
It is hard to have a close range thumper and a long range tack driver in the same package. A larger diameter bullet with more weight will give the desired results but there are so many proven performers about that I am dubious about "new" designs. The U.S. Military has conspired to develop some pretty sorry products in the way of small arms. They all cost big bucks and have not proven satisfactory.
I have a Garand and while it's a fine weapon with a rich history, the 8rd en blocclip (not magazine) is a drawback. I think the M14 carbine currently being tested (civvie version is the M1A SOCOM) is the answer. Trouble being that the muzzle brake makes it very L-O-U-D. Seems to be a small price to pay. It's picatinney rail makes it easy to mount good optics like an ACOG or Aimpoint.
Bad in a jungle war in the 1960's. But a short carbine version in the 21st century where the LAV or Bradley is nearby with lots of spare ammo and water etc, it's sure to make the difference. I loved the old M60,, but it's gone and the belt is a thing of the past, at least carried loose. Belt fed from a box is more compact and dependable.
They can also issue captured AK-47's until the shortage is made up.
Also, the Russians are going over to a 9X39 mm round, and have also built a modern AK-47. They found it better than the round being used for AK-74.
Yes, and they might also make fun of your funny looking blue lipstick (at least briefly).
To respond to multiple people here I'm throwing in my .02 The 5.56 like just about everything the Army does was a response to a percieved problem with no forward vision. In VN the conditions often prevented long range aimed shooting which favored the M-14 and the Army wanted soldiers to be able to carry more ammo to spray and pray in jungle conditions. Now because of advances in CQB optics, soldiers are getting much better accuracy out of rifles, but the 5.56 doesn't give first round drops especially using the M-855 (green tip) out of 14.5 and 16 inch barrels.
The Army wants to be cheap and use a rifle that is a compromise that will use the old 5.56 ammo and then be converted to a heavier bullet later on. (the 6.8 compromise) The reason for the 6.8 is that the overall bullet length is limited by the magazine well on the M-16. The 6.8 SPC is too slow because of the limited case capacity. The optimal new round would be in the 6.5-7mm range with a high muzzle velocity around the 6.5 mauser but in a shorter case for better accuracy.
The Army is also being dumb by wanting a rifle that serves in the SAW role as well as the infantry rifle. That's dumb, they want something that works OK instead of wanting the best weapons for the purpose. Contract for two separate weapons and quit being cheapskates.
What the Army should get is a Bullpup with a reliable short stroke piston (AK-47, G-36, etc) system with at least a 16" barrel firing a high velocity 6.5-7mm bullet. The XM-8 had the right materials and gas system but the wrong caliber and barrel length. The Proprietary optic on the XM-8 looked crappy too, just make a flattop and let the soldier decide which optic and back up sight to use.
Will the Army do the right thing? I don't hold out much hope for it. The small arms procurement process for the Army since the M-1 Garand has been at best flawed.
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.