[holymoly]

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.

Pssst, guys...

[PhilipFreneau]

How about a .257 Weatherby Magnum? It is very fast, yet powerful enough for big game hunting. For sniping, at 500 yards a 120 grainer maintains a velocity of 2141 fps.

http://www.weatherby.com/products/ammo.asp?prd_id=3

[Leatherneck_MT]

If they really want to get the best use of the 7.62, they should tool the new weapons so that they fit ammunition currently being used by the jihadists. Cuts down on the need to resupply ammo when you can take it from your dead enemies and use it against them. Simple process really and we can also tool the weapons so that it will take 2 different types of ammo, ours and theirs. Do this so that they cannot use OUR ammo and you've got a win win situation.

[MrEdd]

I had an HK91 that the Bn. armory lugged around for me when I was in 3/4 (82-84) and as M60 NCO for comm. plt. 7.62 was plentiful. they don' do that anymore, alas. But in gulf war 1 - I had an M60 again :) .

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I love gun threads. FReepers have this subject locked and loaded.

Great post!!

[faq]

I hope the Army goes ahead with the XM8. It's time to replace the M16 with something better. There have been a lot of good reasons given here to choose either the 5.56 or the 7.62. But really, why does it have to be one or the other? Design the XM8 so that it can be chambered for either round. (Right now a person can buy a Browning BAR in about a dozen different calibers.)
I mean, I've got three rifles in my gun cabinet, why should a soldier be limited to only one gun. Let the military order some of both, hand them out as needed for the situation.

[OKSooner]

Later read.

[Arioch7]

I do not really like the round but here is what an Infantry Officer has to say about it when I asked him if he liked the 5.56 round and the M-16...

Its fine. small size of the round enables high magazine capacity. little recoil enables accurate, quick sustained fire. the slight recoil also contributes significantly to marksmanship. the damage with the small diameter round is caused by yaw, or bullet tumble, due to the high velocity of the round... or so some say...

I like the round for its accuracy charecteristics... and having witnessed for my own eyes "average" soldiers from other nations shooting side by side with U.S. soldiers... I can tell you this is a fact... american marksmanship is far superior to that of any "average" soldier from any other army I have seen... we train good shooters fast, and the slight recoil surely helps...

the round is at its best, like any round, for center mass hits... works well for your "average" malnourished terrorist at "average" ranges... In truth, however, I don't think the round would perform too well against an! enemy wearing body armor or even one that was wearing heavy cold weather gear...

Arioch7 here. There you have it. Personally, I have owned an AK-47 and appreciate that gun and the M-14 more but there are pros and cons to all things.

I still liked my AK though...

[JCEccles]

Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls

Which is why, when the Marines went calling on a hunkered-down enemy in World War II, they were pleased to use John Moses Browning's lil' door knocker with .30-06 knuckles:

[M Kehoe]

Sheeite and a muslim.

5.56mm

[HP8753]

New .243 Service Rifle Cartridge, A Proposal by Chuck Hawks

[SaltyJoe]

Ping for later

[Casloy]

The single biggest problem I recall with the M-16 in Vietnam was the tendency of troops to empty their magazine on fully automatic at the first sign of contact. The silence following that initial burst was terrifying. I think it was the reason why many M-4's have three round burst limits. There is still no better way to lay down suppressing fire than single and continuous well aimed rounds. I do think the M-4 is not the right weapon in desert and urban warfare. It was great in the jungle, but simply doesn't work as well here.

[jordan8]

One way to solve these problems is to have a gun that can fire full powered cartridges for long range or penetration and multiple projection cartridges, with say 3 bullets, for short range. These multiple bullet rounds would only have to be accurate and able to penetrate soft body armor out to 1-200 meters, ideally with at least one projectile hitting to point of aim and the others hitting within a 1-2 foot radius. While current cartridges could be used a new one with a long neck would probably be best. Whether it should be semi-auto only or have burst or full auto capability will have to be worked out. This doesn't completely solve the carrying problem since while each multiple projection cartridge equals three regular cartridges fired on burst, the advantage dissappears when slow aimed fire is desired.

The Austrian firm of Hirtenberg made tungsten cored 5.56 bullets in the '70s with excellent penetration.

[Poser]

.45ACP is God's Caliber. That said, the .30 caliber round is much more effective than the .223.

There is no one round or gun that is best for all uses.

The 1903 bolt action Springfield is still one of the best medium/long range weapons ever produced. The AK47 is the king of spray and pray.

If the Army wants a larger caliber select-fire combat rifle, more power to them (pun intended). This means I'll be able to buy the civilian version and cheap ammo soon after adoption.

More toys!

[attiladhun2]

Too heavy, rate of fire too low, but a good weapon in its day. Much better than the Mauser or Arisaka. Also better than the Italians' rifle (most of which were dropped).