Pssst, guys...
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.
Pssst, guys...
Itty bitty bullet bump
While the Garand is a fine rifle, I prefer the M14.
I think the XM8 in 6.8spc would be a great choice. I'm surprised it's taking so long.
However, the M16/M4 are still very viable systems.
HALLELUJAH!!!
"I prefer the M14."
As do I. Love that rifle.
BAR with armor piercing ammo is fine for shooting a door way through a cinder block wall in about two seconds.
Why not just rechamber it for 7.62x51 NATO?
Not for the kind of battles our troops are engaged in. The 5.56 is fine for European theater warfare, less so for urban combat.
Troops in Iraq regularly report that while shooting at cars that run checkpoints that 5.56 rounds fail to penetrate sufficiently to stop the car.
Additionally, troops in Afganistan report that shooting an enemy at 500+ yards with a 5.56 often ends up with the target going down and then getting back up.
5.56 is fine for an area denial weapon, ie keeping the enemy's head down while riflemen move into killing positions. It's not so fine as a primary infantry rifle.
Let's put composite stocks on the M14 and issue that as the primary rifle until we get something better.
The reason we went to 5.56 was more ammo-per bag, and lighter weight. I still think those are important. The 6.8spc is a decent balance I think.
I hadn't heard it being shelved either.
I checked the Early Bird this morning - nothing there. This might be a latrine (nice wording) rumor.
As reliable a killer as the M14 was -- there were problems.
It was too long for close quarters and heavy undergrowth.
It was too heavy.
The 7.62 ammo to feed the piece, was also too bulky and heavy.
Ten 20 round magazines were a load -- and you still had to carry at least one belt for the M60.... LOTS of weight.
The redeaming value, was that you could reach way out and put the deadly touch on Charlie - and one round properly placed was sufficient....out to better than 600 yards.
At that range, Charlie's AK47 was a spray and pray piece.
Semper Fi
You got that right, the bullet is the most important design.
The 5.45mmx39mm Soviet is probably the one I'd start from if we were going to go all new cartridge mode. Base it on that.
I was talking to a colleague who was in Vietnam, and handled both the M14 and M16. He told me the M14 was a far better weapon. He called the M16 "Mattel" from all the plastic.
I've shot a semi-auto M14, and it is very nice. Kicks pretty good though, and the weight again.
An updated M14 like Sprinfield's SOCOMII would be pretty good. I'm just used to the AR/CAR15 style.
I'm curious to see what the military will end up doing.
He also has a close-quarters battle, bobbed version of the M-107/M-82 .50-cal. rifle.
The drawback to a weapon like that in an urban scenario being that, if you miss, or even if you don't, there's a possibility that you accidentally bag Grandma four houses away.
Did someone say, "overpenetration"?
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.
