# Military to adopt new round?



## Tgace (Apr 26, 2004)

There has been some rumbling in the military/LEO circles about a new chambering for the venerable M16/M4/AR series rifle. It promises superior terminal ballistics with a nominal gain in weight/recoil.......



> by David Crane
> david@defensereview.com
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 27, 2004)

While I'm glad they're finally thinking about getting away from the .223, I wish they'd just go back to the .308.  Or even the 7.62x39 (the AK-47 round).


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 27, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> While I'm glad they're finally thinking about getting away from the .223, I wish they'd just go back to the .308.  Or even the 7.62x39 (the AK-47 round).



As great as I think the heavier round is, I don't know if it is the best choice with the doctrine of maneuver warfare and  the close contact of 'peace keeping operations' .... and the high tempo of combat.  Issues of wt. and such....

A lighter round might be cool as long as it doesn't deflect easily because it is so fragile (light things at high velocity can skip off ballistic trail very easily).


----------



## Tgace (Apr 27, 2004)

Weight and ammo capacity....4 times the power at a 2 round loss in capacity and all you need is a simple upper change. Ive heard that current magazines can be used with a change in springs and followers. Cost effective over a retooling to .308 or 7.62X39.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Weight and ammo capacity....4 times the power at a 2 round loss in capacity and all you need is a simple upper change. Ive heard that current magazines can be used with a change in springs and followers. Cost effective over a retooling to .308 or 7.62X39.



How will this new round impact qualification fire/ranges for each stage.... if at all.

I don't think the Army's pop up target qual would be affected (or should I say impacted )

But the USMC Bull's Eye/Known Distance range might be tweeked (if it hasn't been already with the m-4 instead of the M16a2).


----------



## Tgace (Apr 27, 2004)

Well, from what I understand, the developers werent looking for any signifigant increase in range. The trajectory of the 6.8 is pretty much the same out to 650 meters. It just delivers a better punch. If the target systems currently in place can take it, I dont know. But I recall knocking down "crazy ivans" with the M-60 (7.62mm) so there are systems in use that can.

Another + with the round is that if current magazines can be used, there wont be a need to change/buy new mag pouches or tac. gear.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 27, 2004)

I doubt the USMC would change the KD course.  If the projectile handles the same out to 600 yds as a 7.62 then the leathernecks will simply retrain the riflemen to adjust elevation for the heavier round.  The furthest distance I remember on the KD course was 500 yds.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 27, 2004)

I was actually thinking that the range might decrease instead of increase.  The high mobility, cqb nature of modern warfare doctrine makes 500 yd accuracy sort of archaic, plus the shorter, less stable M4 might actually reduce accuracy to 500 yds already.

I am a firm believer that more budget on combining the KD and the pop up ranges at the recruit level of training would benefit all branches -especially in a time when motor transport and other logistical units are being targeted as much as they are.  I love my USMC shooting days.  Loved the 500 yd line fire.  Would had to see it go away.  Too much good principles that translate to closer range fire for it to be a 'waste of time' except to bean counters who focus on money OVER training and readiness.  INvest early and you get more later.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 27, 2004)

I think the military trend towards optics will have more impact on marksmanship training than range.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 27, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I think the military trend towards optics will have more impact on marksmanship training than range.



Yeah, last Leatherneck issue mentioned the ACOG sights.  THere was a definite emphasis in the article that it would in no way replace sound marksmanship fundamentals, but only act as a battlefield asset/tool to increase effectiveness.  Tough thing to balance.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 28, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> As great as I think the heavier round is, I don't know if it is the best choice with the doctrine of maneuver warfare and  the close contact of 'peace keeping operations' .... and the high tempo of combat.  Issues of wt. and such.....


  I could see this logic with regard to the .308 (a.k.a. 7.62x51). I'll admit that while it's a superb long-range round, it's not the best for urban settings.  However, I still think the 7.62x39 would be an excellent choice.  In fact, for the people who favor the .223 over the 7.62x39 the issue is usually their claim that the .223 is accurate at longer ranges.  However, since the type of fighting we are now seeing is in an urban setting, and the fact that the M-4 is becoming the weapon of choice, this argument doesn't carry much weight. My reasons for liking the 7.62x39 are as follows: 
1. stopping power, the common load is a 130 gr. JHP or FMJ.  this is a much better a$$ kicker than the 55 or 60 gr. 223.   
2. availability: The stuff is used pretty much everywhere in the world so finding ammo wouldn't be hard if re-supply became a problem.  In fact, I read an article back when we first sent troops into Afghanistan that the Army Special Forces were evaluating a rifle based on the old Stoner-63 design chambered for 7.62x39 and that would use AK mags.  This way they'd be able to use captured ammo and magazines.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 28, 2004)

kenpotex said:
			
		

> I could see this logic with regard to the .308 (a.k.a. 7.62x51). I'll admit that while it's a superb long-range round, it's not the best for urban settings.  However, I still think the 7.62x39 would be an excellent choice.  In fact, for the people who favor the .223 over the 7.62x39 the issue is usually their claim that the .223 is accurate at longer ranges.  However, since the type of fighting we are now seeing is in an urban setting, and the fact that the M-4 is becoming the weapon of choice, this argument doesn't carry much weight. My reasons for liking the 7.62x39 are as follows:
> 1. stopping power, the common load is a 130 gr. JHP or FMJ.  this is a much better a$$ kicker than the 55 or 60 gr. 223.
> 2. availability: The stuff is used pretty much everywhere in the world so finding ammo wouldn't be hard if re-supply became a problem.  In fact, I read an article back when we first sent troops into Afghanistan that the Army Special Forces were evaluating a rifle based on the old Stoner-63 design chambered for 7.62x39 and that would use AK mags.  This way they'd be able to use captured ammo and magazines.



I like the .308 round now too.  But, then I am not humping mags full of it all over hell and gone, up and down hills, through swamps, while I am trying to run as fast as I can  from cover to cover....love the memories - don't miss the work...too much

I think the practicallity of wt. is going to be a major selling point. The weakness of using confiscated rounds or scavanged ammo is the moral image of it (notice I didn't say morallity) to the general public (Marine waves to the CNN camera "hi mom" while rifling through enemy corpse's ammo pouches...) and the tactic of sabotaging ammo caches.  Load a 'found round' into your weapon and it blows up in your face.

Is there any issue with the stopping power of the current .223 round?  I always remember the tumbling engineering being the real damage with that load.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I think the practicallity of wt. is going to be a major selling point. The weakness of using confiscated rounds or scavanged ammo is the moral image of it (notice I didn't say morallity) to the general public (Marine waves to the CNN camera "hi mom" while rifling through enemy corpse's ammo pouches...) and the tactic of sabotaging ammo caches.  Load a 'found round' into your weapon and it blows up in your face.


  The question of sabotaged ammo is a valid point, although during Vietnam we were the ones doing that to them.  I really don't see much of a problem here as the only time they would need to use captured ammo would be if they were cut off from supply, which considering the availabilty of aircraft probably doesn't happen often.  Moving on, I saw a piece of footage from Iraq a couple of months ago which showed some Marines searching a house.  Two, out of about 8 guys were carrying AK's.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Is there any issue with the stopping power of the current .223 round?  I always remember the tumbling engineering being the real damage with that load.


  As far as the performance of the round there are people on both sides of the table (kind of like the 9mm vs. .45 debate).  I personally don't have a whole lot of respect for the round whether it tumbles or not.  If you shoot someone with something bigger, ie. one of the 7.62 family _HE_ will do the tumbling .  One of the reasons the .223 was chosen (in addition to the amount of ammo vs. weight issue) was the misguided theory that since the .223 is less likely to kill than the .30 rounds, more of the enemy soldiers would be out of commission b/c they would have to care for their wounded men rather than just leaving dead ones behind.  however, this doesn't "pan-out" in reality because nobody we get into fights with gives a rat's a$$ about their soldiers, they just leave them for us to patch up.  

Anyway, just my thoughts. this is another one of those debates that will never be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 29, 2004)

If we could use hollow points this debate would be mute.....


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 29, 2004)

It is kind of ironic that we don't scream about hollow points and all the variances like Eagle Talons, Silver Sables for LEO to use on, essentially fellow citizens.  At the same time, when facing a known foreign enemy, we can't use anything except hardball.

Uh oh, where is Janulis, here comes a thread topic:

Are Hollow points for LEO moral or a violation of your civil rights?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It is kind of ironic that we don't scream about hollow points and all the variances like Eagle Talons, Silver Sables for LEO to use on, essentially fellow citizens.  At the same time, when facing a known foreign enemy, we can't use anything except hardball.
> 
> Uh oh, where is Janulis, here comes a thread topic:
> 
> Are Hollow points for LEO moral or a violation of your civil rights?





 :lol:  :lol:  :lol:


----------



## DoxN4cer (Apr 29, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> It is kind of ironic that we don't scream about hollow points and all the variances like Eagle Talons, Silver Sables for LEO to use on, essentially fellow citizens.  At the same time, when facing a known foreign enemy, we can't use anything except hardball.
> 
> Uh oh, where is Janulis, here comes a thread topic:
> 
> Are Hollow points for LEO moral or a violation of your civil rights?



Hehehe... I'm sure we'd all love to hear his single hand clap... or is that the sound of someone patting himself on the back...


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 29, 2004)

I for one will be very happy if the military adopts a new round. The 55grain 5.56 round that the old M16A1 fired definetly lacked needed knockdown power. Most of us that carried it into combat felt grossly underarmed and carried extra frags, personal sidearms and sometimes AK47s.


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 29, 2004)

Just as a side note to the 5.56 being too small to do the job, here in the state of Virginia it is illegal to hunt deer with any .22 cal round.  The 5.56 falls into this catagorey as the .223 cal.  Their reasoning on this is that the .223 doesn't have the knock down power needed to reasonably assure a clean kill even with a properly placed shot.  If the .223 is considered too small for white tail then it should follow that the round is too small for human targets with at least a modicum of body armor.  I always felt like I was back home plinckin' tin cans when firing the M-16A2.  It just didn't feel large enough to make me comfortable that the weapon was effective.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 29, 2004)

theletch1 said:
			
		

> Just as a side note to the 5.56 being too small to do the job, here in the state of Virginia it is illegal to hunt deer with any .22 cal round.  The 5.56 falls into this catagorey as the .223 cal.  Their reasoning on this is that the .223 doesn't have the knock down power needed to reasonably assure a clean kill even with a properly placed shot.  If the .223 is considered too small for white tail then it should follow that the round is too small for human targets with at least a modicum of body armor.  I always felt like I was back home plinckin' tin cans when firing the M-16A2.  It just didn't feel large enough to make me comfortable that the weapon was effective.



I agree with Kempotex on this one:  I don't think there have been anything but personal flavor level of debate over stopping power of the .223 round.  Here in NYS, the rifle loads that include .223 are not allowed because of the velocity and range in built up areas - except for around the Adirondack mts.  We are only allowed Shotgun for deer.

Body armor, on the average is designed for pistol rounds.  rifle loads will regularly penetrate unless there is a trauma plate in use.  As far as I know, the Iraqi were so poorly funded/equipt force in the past that they were issued plastic helmets.  Terrorists/militia insurgent forces aren't regularly wearing body armor.

The damage done by the .223/5.56 is the 7:1 twist.

As far as backyard plinking, it was the buffer spring in the m16 design that reduced the recoil,  not the lack of bang for your buck in the caliber.  .223 is a much hotter round than the .22 cal.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 29, 2004)

I found this post while wandering the web...fairly long but has a lot of very good points for those who care about this stuff.

http://www.sheepfreezone.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_sheepfreezone_archive.html



> MY PROBLEMS WITH THE M4: Phil Carter e-mailed me, with reference to my last post, inquiring why I don't like the M4 carbine. (He has a certain fondness for it, since he carried one for a while as an MP officer.) I wouldn't go so far as to say that I don't like it in general: in the roles for which it was intended, it's probably far superior to the weapons it's replacing. I just don't like it as a general purpose infantry weapon. I drafted a lengthy post on this topic, but I think it's probably _too_ lengthy. Let me try to summarize.
> 
> First, it's highly debatable whether the 5.56x45 mm M885 round that our military employs in the M16A2 and M4 is adequate for military use. Anecdotal evidence from the debacle in Somalia indicates that it doesn't reliably put the enemy out of action unless he's hit several times. Mark Bowden recounted complaints on this point from survivors of the battle in Mogadishu in his book, _Blackhawk Down_. (This is not to say a torso shot from a single 5.56 round can't kill: it certainly can. The question is _when_ will it kill--fifteen or thirty second from now, or an hour from now? The difference is significant.)
> 
> ...


----------

