[coldair]

the army is finally under pressure to review the weak and anemic 5.56 round and I hope we can work together and get them the 6.8 SPC which I believe is the best weapon for the job at hand.
what I need is a list of who to call
a nicely composed letter we can email to our congressmen showing in brief the failures of M4 and the 5.56
including the benefits of getting them to switch to the 6.8 SPC
a list of phone numbers and email addresses to send this information to
and last but not least the connection between the Pentagon and the retired general that is running colt industries and how that cronyism is hurting our soldiers but staying with the same old weak M4 M.
The Army has started reviewing soldiers’ complaints that their M855 ammunition was not powerful enough in their battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. General George W. Casey Jr., the Army Chief of Staff, said that it would be premature to state whether Pentagon would make a change.


The press interviewed some current soldiers and some ex-soldiers. Some had said that M855 ammunition was insufficient for close-in fighting. Such battles usually happened in the cities and towns of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The M855 ammunition was designed many years ago. Its initial requirement was to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from a few hundred yards away. Some soldiers gave the feedback that they were insufficient to stop an enemy immediately at close quarters.

Please click on thumbnail to enlarge. The pictures are only samples that bear some close resemblances to the M855 ammunition and gun.

 

[Furyataurus]

I've heard that there's nothing wrong with the 5.56 round, only that the barrels are toooo short for them to be truly effective. My dad was in Vietnam and said his M-16/M240 grenade launcher was extremely effective. He noticed that the shorter barrels in use now are too short. He said they should be at least 18"-20", not less than 14".

 

[Adosh]

the ammunition they get issued is the problem

 

[coldair]

I have 2 hk 91's and they would not be my first choice for CQ

 

[Adosh]

thats because they are hk91s :lol: :lol:

 

[BreakerDave]

everyone should man up and get an ar10 type .308 platform

This is the old Battle Rifle vs. Assault Rifle argument. I know people have their favorites, but unless there is major change on the battlefield, it has been decided and the Battle Rifles lost. As good as the 7.62x51/.308 round is, the problems are 1) concerns of weight, 2) concerns of how recoil negatively affected accuracy, and 3) cost.

Weight is the enemy of all soldiers. The fact of the matter is that one can carry about two 5.56x45/.223 rounds for every 7.62x51/.308 round. That allows the average soldier to double the number of rounds he carries by using a platform that makes use of the 5.56 round. Given the rate of fire in modern combat, this is very important. Not every shot that is fired is fired to kill an enemy combatant. Often troops employ suppressive fire / covering fire to hinder an opponent's ability to move or mount effective resistance. This can allow the troops who are using suppressive fire to take the initiative in a firefight. If your group is carrying substantially heavier ammo, you will have to carry less of it or less of something else that makes up the soldier's basic combat load. -Clearly, running out of ammo in combat is bad.

Related to the rate of fire point, is how controllable a rifle is when burst fire or full auto are selected. Most of the time, the rifle is supposed to be on semi-auto because burst and full auto goes through ammo very quickly. However, there are certain times when burst fire or full auto are desired. The average infantryman can do a decent job with a rifle chambered in 5.56 when using burst fire. The same cannot be said about the average soldier when shooting 7.62x51/.308 through a rifle. (To be clear, I am not talking about a crew served machine gun here.) Soldiers can be trained to a higher standard where they could be more accurate when shooting 7.62x51/.308 through a rifle on burst fire, but that costs money and what can be done for cadres of special operators can become prohibitively expensive when applied to the entire military institution.

In the end, cost is what makes it difficult for the US and other NATO countries to ditch the 5.56 round in favor of some other caliber. Having to replace stockpiles of ammo, mags, barrels, and possibly entire inventories of rifles is an expensive proposition. If they are going to do that they need a very compelling reason. Soldiers may deserve the best equipment money can buy, but that is not what they get because equipping one person with the best is different than equipping tens of thousands of people to the same standard.

In reality, when a 5.56 round is properly placed it can kill a person. That alone undercuts the reason to incur the cost that a switch to anything else would entail.

 

[B52U]

I've heard that there's nothing wrong with the 5.56 round, only that the barrels are toooo short for them to be truly effective. My dad was in Vietnam and said his M-16/M240 grenade launcher was extremely effective. He noticed that the shorter barrels in use now are too short. He said they should be at least 18"-20", not less than 14".

I think this is partially true. The main issue is ammo type. Troops these days use the green tipped M855 ball round which is heavier than the old M193.

M855 was designed for the cold war to penetrate body armor (which is still a concern in GWOT with some insurgents). As such at certain ranges it will poke small holes like a red hot poker and not do as much trauma to the target. M193 (lighter round) had the tendency to tumble more upon impact at high velocity (longer barrels help here) causing pretty good trauma on the target.

The longer 20 inch barreled M-16's are still in the fight with some troops and I believe the advantages of the shorter 14.5 inch M-4 in very short distance fights in the urban setting make up for the loss in muzzle velocity. Longer ranges show the weakness of the shorter barrel but under 100 meters the difference is likely marginal.

One thing to consider is this. Is being able to carry more rounds just as important as having big round power? If you have more rounds you have more flexibility with suppressing the enemy while you maneuver to kill him. There is no definitive data on this.

Good link on the subject:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004212.html

 

[B52U]

the ammunition they get issued is the problem
anyone still using green tip and tracers is wasting their time, we arent fighting russians, theres no fur coats to penetrate

+1 :?

 

[coldair]

well if the military is not already using the 6.8 then who is buying up the millions of rounds of 6.8 faster then it can be produced?

 

[Adosh]

well if the military is not already using the 6.8 then who is buying up the millions of rounds of 6.8 faster then it can be produced?

small specialized units maybe? i dont know for sure

 

[Adosh]

:lol:

 

[B52U]

the point im trying to make is a .308 is a valuable option that recently became available to all higher tier troops, and they are taking the .308 option

Regular units have been getting .308 as well but usually only one per squad. They've been dusting off the old M-14's for some time now in Iraq. Squad designated marksman they call them. I did not ever feel under gunned with the M-4, so long as my buddies with the M-240B, the SAW's and the M-14 had my back. Can't win without the team.

 

[BlitzPig]

The effective use of the "combined arms" principle, even at the squad level.

I really don't see any change in ammunition types used by the US military in the foreseeable future. Although there is a persistent undercurrent to replace the 9mm sidearm with a .45 ACP weapon. (The FNP-45 is a result of this).

The current practice of using the .223 for close combat and having the .308 on hand for longer range work will continue.

If we were to change to a different basic round I like the 6.5 Grendel better than the 6.8 SPC. But it's not gonna happen anyway.