Weapons of the World: Little Bullets (5.56) Lose Respect

Weapons of the World ^ | November 15, 2005

[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.

[plenipotentiary]

The Germans had a good design too:

The caseless ammunition in its early appearance was designed as a block of the propellant, coated with flammable laquer, with bullet and primer "glued on" the propellant. Final ammunition design DM11, that appeared in the mid-1980s, featured "telescopic" design, when bullet was fully enclosed in the block of the propellant. The cartridge propelled the bullet that weights 3.25 gramms, to the 930-960 meters per second.
Early prototypes were prone to the ammunition cook-offs during the sustained fire, but later Dynamit Nobel solved this issue.
In the late 1980s the Bundeswehr (West German Army) began the field tests of the pre-production G11s. After the initial tests, some improvements were devised, such as removable optical sight, mounting of two spare magazines on the rifle, and bayonet/bipod mount under the muzzle.
The modified variant, called G11K2, was tested in 1989, scoring at least 50% better combat accuracy when compared to G3 rifle. Initial batch of some 1000 G11K2s was received by Bundeswehr in 1990 or so, but due to some reasons the whole programme was cancelled by German Government. Main reasons of this cancellation were, in my opinion, the lack of fundings after the re-union of the West and East Germanies, and the general NATO policy for unification of the ammunition and even magazines for the assault rifles.
The slightly modified G11 was also tested in the USA under the ACR (Advanced Cobat Rifle) programme, in 1990. The ACR programme was not intended to result in adoption of the new rifle for the US Army, just to test new technologies and designs, and the G11 proved itself as a very accurate, comfortable to handle and fire, and reliable weapon.

13th prototype of the G11 (HKpro.com)


caseless ammunition - early variant at the left, latest variant DM11 (cutout view) - at the right


schematic drawing of the G11 bolt & feeding system

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as42-e.htm

[Sender]

We know what the 7.62 can do, and we know how to load lots of them. The only 'problem' was the extra weight of all that brass.

Why not mold 7.62 cases out of high-tech polymer like they did with Spectrum PCA? Then you'd still have the heavy bullet and power, without most of the weight.

[Sender]

Haven't you heard? The FAL is 'outdated' according to Hugo Chavez.

[WKUHilltopper]

I never understood why in the world they changed the M16 to a three round burst and got rid of the full auto feature. Kinda defeats it's sting. Without the full auto, you might as well take a .22 squirrel rifle in the field.

[Knitebane]

That's what a 25mm Bushmaster cannon is for :)

Yeah, but it sucks to be the guy lugging that thing around. ;)

[wtc911]

Typical US Army Infantry squad is one 240B, two SAWS and four-five M4s. I was fortunate enough to observe/assist in a training program at Fort Benning and this was the set-up.

[Dick Vomer]

Amen.... something about a 30-06 hitting somebody..... just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

[burzum]

have a look at his semiauto 4-round 25mm "payload" rifle, the XM109......it's the heaviest-caliber assault rifle I've ever heard of.

Gotta post a picture:

Another drawback is that some people might confuse you with a tank if you carry this sniper rifle.

[jpsb]

The M-14 is probably the finest infantry rifle ever.Why the USMC moved to the M-16 I will never understand.

[Gvl_M3]

"The other is the wound factor. It is a fact that if there is a wounded soldier, it takes two or three others out of action to take care on them"

I've heard this before, and it makes sense when you are fighting an enemy that cares about their wounded. The people we are fighting now don't care. The wounded then become liabilities to our troops because we have to spend time restraining and watching them.

On the amount of ammo, it isn't like our troops are a 20k hike back to the compound to reload. I think a more powerful rifle would be preferred. They may have to carry 2/3 the number of rounds, but they can run back to the HMMVV and get more.

[RightOnline]

Ping.

[FreedomPoster]

No grenadiers with M203's?

[NonValueAdded]

It is a fact that if there is a wounded soldier, it takes two or three others out of action to take care on them

But only if your enemy cares about their wounded. If their philosophy is "it was the will of god that Achmed was hit and not I," we have a problem. I'm afraid the factor you cite deserves less weight in the modern equation.

[Redleg Duke]

I never respected the 5.56mm. I have a Garand and it is a fine weapon, but I'd take an M-14 anytime!

By the way, do you remember how Clinton had a multi-million dollar machine built for the Anniston Army Arsenal whose sole function was to destroy the M-14 rifles in storage? I wonder how many of those wonderful weapons were destroyed by that criminal enterprise known as the Clinton Crime Syndicate?

[Kewlhand`tek]

they could just use a blended metal bullet. I dont remember off hand what metals are blended in the projectile. But I read an article in stars and stripes where a company donated some blended metal bullets 5.56 and were used on patrol. They shot an insurgent with it in the stomach, normal this wasn't life threatening but it blew his backside out. then there was a frenzy to get ahold of allthe blended metal bullets they could find. But the Army said they will not use those bullets. oh wait I found the article

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/bullets/

[gopherbaroque]

because new recruits in thier first fire fight would be "sprayin-n-prayin" and be out of ammo in like 3 minutes and didn't hit a thing. Also, after 3 rounds, you are drifting off target and wasting precious ammo. Three rounds of 5.56 in the torso and your opponent is FUBAR. This is not theory, it is first hand observation.

The M14 was, and still is a terrific weapon. I own one, as well as a Garand,that I shoot on a regular basis. The M14 is practicly useless on full auto as I know of no mortal who can keep it on the paper after the first round.

The M14 evolved into a "specialized" weapon by the time I got to Viet Nam in 1967. Since I had a "specialized" job, I used one frequently and I loved it as much then as I do now. I would'nt recomend outfitting a rifle company with them though.

Semper Fi

[Steel Wolf]

I have never been in combat, but I do think there are a few reasons to stay where we're at. The first is your typical field belt caries 3 to 5 magazine pouches...that would be 270 to 450 rounds in 5.56. I do not know how many rounds a practical carry would be in 7X62...

I found myself, out of habit, carrying nearly 400 rounds of ammo, using Tactical Tailor kit that I had set up for long range reconnaissance. It didn't make a lot of sense, given that I was riding around in a Humvee with ammo cans sitting right behind me. If I could have dropped 150 rounds off the total, but know the remaining rounds would give me a guarenteed knock down, I'd have done so in a heartbeat.

The other is the wound factor. It is a fact that if there is a wounded soldier, it takes two or three others out of action to take care on them...one of the reasons 5.56 was created.

That just means we wind up fighting the same terrorists over and over. We don't want to or three guys carrying away a wounded terrorist, we want all of them to stay within range so they can be taken down. Once they retreat, we lose them until they surface again. Many of the guys we rolled up had been shot a few times prior, but likely would not have survived if those hits were 7.62.

The other is close quarter combat. A 16 to 20 inch barrel would be preferred I think...

Plenty of heavier weapons come with shorter barrels. I've seen a number of AKs shorter than my M4.

Again, I have never been in combat so I cannot voice strongly on the need for more "knock down" power.

There may have been some grand mathmatical logic for using 5.56 during a massive war, causing tens of thousands of casualties that would wear down our opponents medical infrastructure. These days, if an insurgent gets shot, we're the ones treating them. Thus, they survive on our dime, and are released from Abu G a few months later to attack us again.

[Redleg Duke]

The 5.56mm was introduced for use against a dismounted force in the jungle. From the git go we knew that it was virtually useless against vehicles.

Crap, we Artillerymen got away from the Star formation after Nam, but the rest of the Army hasn't been able to get away from the Mattie-Mattel syndrome.

Let's go back to the M-14 in the 7.62mm now and if you want to experiment with the 6.8mm, fine, but get rid of the 5.56mm. It's claim to fame is that it drastically reduced bolos (city folks and little people who let the recoil of the M-14 scare them away from qualifying), but it isn't good against anything other than exposed meat targets.

[Redleg Duke]

"That's what a 25mm Bushmaster cannon is for :)"

That is fine...if you have a Bradly available.

[Lazamataz]

See this article? Perhaps our military experiences are finally being put to use.