The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 19, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Procurement Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: New assault rifle caliber?
Goblin6    9/24/2003 2:31:31 PM
If the US decides to drop the 5.56MM round used in the M-16 & M-249; what caliber should they adapt and why?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Scorpene    RE:New assault rifle caliber?   10/4/2003 7:14:37 AM
There are many ideas, ranging from bringing back the .30, probably in 7.62mm NATO form, to a 6mm cartridge that would give up the best of both worlds in a lighterweight cartridge as well as penetration and "whomp". I think three things would be the determining parameters in the decision; first, the adaptability of the cartridge body to a high-capacity feeding system (which all cartridges do not do equally) as well as money-- we have the same problem the Germans had back in late WWII as they contemplated phasing out the 7.92 in favor of the new Sturmgewehr short round-- too much of it lying around and not enough energy to replace it. Our logistics systems, and those of the allies we would support, are wedded to the 5.56. The third will be the shooting score of the average troop when the round is mated with the launching system we choose for it-- G36, M-16, etc.. Our experience indicates that without adequate training, our troops will not do well with the heavier loads. The correct procedure would be to train them, but I need not rehash that scene. The truth is, there are many arguments for and against all of the cartridges-- if we strip them down to strictly their ballistic merits. Many are valid, or not so, based upon the situation you are in. The 5.56 in it's existing form has limits induced by physics. The primary one is in the ability of the projectile to cut a large hole in the person while still managing to chew through the hard cover-- all that battlefield stuff-- that can get in the way, including packs, clothing, rows of left-wing books.... On the other hand, you can shoot it easily, and carry lots of it. Get your 7.62 out, and no problemo with either hard cover or stopping power, unless they have some really heavy body armor. But you better be able to shoot that piece, and make your shots count. Modern warfare has shown us a certain threshold between ammunition mass and power that works in combat-- the equation has held roughly since World War Two. Sometimes you need a lot of rounds, and other times one good one. I think, based on experience we have had, that any ideas about replacing the 5.56 are going to stay just that. The budget cutters aren't going to listen to the grunts, and neither will the logistics people, for what they consider to be good reasons. I suggest a third way-- and that is to maximize the 5.56 by aggressive training and use of good sighting systems; ACOG, reflex sights, holo-sights... and to also remember that very few of the rounds discussed will make it through the advanced body armor that is proliferating around the battlefields. At some point, marksmanship will have to make the difference between kills and angry opponents. We are going to have to shoot where the armor is not-- head, legs, etc.. and use explosive and incendiary weapons to get into areas that are reinforced. Small arms, save for light .50s, won't do much against a seriously protected target. Some of the new powders, alloy bullets (see the IQ and RBCD rounds for some great material) and particularly the reinforced ceramics that could make higher-pressure rounds more viable, perhaps with advanced compensators? may change things up, but for now, I think not. Charles Cutshaw commented recently that he sees the most hope for small arms advancement in the near future in the shotgun, due to it's large round, but it is destined to be a special purpose weapon regardless.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:New assault rifle caliber?   10/4/2003 10:19:05 AM
I would love to see the British .280 adopted but alas, for the reasons in Scopene?s post, it ain?t going to happen. An alternative I favour is the route that the Royal Marine and Canadians are taking; train more specialist snipers and operate then in two man teams. Ideally you want at least one team per 30 men, more would be better, equipped with the very best practical sniper rifle, the RPA International in .338 Lapua. Your regular grunts can retain the M16 and use it as at present (as a hose) to give suppressive fire. This solves the Logistics argument, as the expenditure of sniper rounds would be very low.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy