USMC is sticking to their guns

[ebb]

Convert M4s to 20inch plus barrels and rechamber to 6mm Grendel, develop a good bullet to work on armor. Everybody gets one.

 

[Just Say Moe]

What we do - develop weapons to fight the last war:

Forgotten weapons

 

[Tangent]

Despite having no military experience I can still see why soldiers don't want to carry around large rounds. Heavy and bulky. I can also see why 556 might not be optimal.

Any replacement was always going to be a compromise. Given a size and mass of a potential target I'd have thought something like a 6mm 105gr bullet would have been adequate. So something like the 6 ARC. More mass, decent velocity, reasonable magazine capacity, flat shooting, low recoil. (Edit: looks like 6ARC could do with a bit more boiler room or maybe some of those new alloy cases?)

The trouble with anything based on .308 brass size you're going to have most of the same drawbacks, so you may as well just shoot.308.

 

[M-61]

In a war zone you are able to shoot the enemy at 600yds with an AR type rifle?

Not a chance.
To clarify: Yes you can shoot at the enemy at 600 yards, but you’re not hitting anyone.
You can shoot at the enemy at 1000 yards too . You’re only giving away your position.
Where I was in Vietnam you were lucky if you could see 6 yards.lol
In my time I had both the M-14 and M-16.
Yes there were occasions in the rice paddy’s were maybe tops a 200 yard shot was available. That was rare but the leeches were not.
But I humped that M-14 and ammo and preferred it to the M-16.
I guess I should add I was there early in the war and the issued M-16 (non chrome lined) were garbage. This was corrected by lining the barrel (had the letter C stamped on the receiver.) That was better. Then they realized that a cleaning kit would be nice to issue also.
I’ll share this antidote and it’s absolutely true. The instructor explaining the M-16 went on to talk about what a lethal cartridge this 5.56 was. He went into great detail how, when fired, this bullet tumbled through the air causing enormous wounds.
I might have been a wise assed kid at the time, but I knew this was pure BS . I had been around reloaders since I was 10. End of story.
In retrospect if given the choice of which of the two I don’t want to be shot with, it doesn’t take much thought.

 

[danny]

What do I know, but I don't think that 5.56 is and was a great choice. 6.8??? Nor do I think 6.8 is a great choice. It's halfway between 5.56 and 7.62 and we already have 7.62 well developed.

Danny

 

[K22]

I think it's well documented regarding the jamming problems encountered early in Vietnam which if my memory is correct, was due to the ball powder they were using and its incompatibility with the jungle environment.

My experience in during basic in 1970 with the M16 was positive so by that time it seems that they had fixed that problem. We spend 80 hours on the rifle range. I never had a jam, and the rifle was very accurate for a combat weapon. Hitting silhouette targets are 300 meters from a fox hole was no problem at all with peep sights.

Later when I served for a short time as a firearms instructor, I found it easy to train soldiers due to the light recoil. While I never experience combat with the M 16, I will let those who have comment of its effectiveness.

 

[DaveTooley]

In a war zone you are able to shoot the enemy at 600yds with an AR type rifle?

Butch
I didn't write the requirement. Work trickled down to me. Several people I know wish they had heeded my advice and just developed a new 7.62 round. A high pressure 7.62 and good bullet design would be a winner. You have people sitting around trying to reinvent the wheel. Change is now a way of life.

 

[Doug Casner]

Those old boys in ww2 were probably in better shape, on average , than today just from manuel labor. My uncle told me there were times he would be throwing bandaleers of 30 cal. in the ditch while making a hasty retreat from the Germans . Doug

 

[Steve Donlon]

A simple solution to most lethality issues with the M16 platform could be cured by keeping the standard barrel length at 20 Inches and 16 inches being the shortest carried. We have pretty much worked out all issues with the M16 platform other than the short barrels being a huge mistake in a battle rifle. Short barrels look to be the main problem to me. We do not needing a new Hi-Pressure cartridge. Bringing the velocity numbers on the 5.56 back up will cure a lot of the problem.

Bob R

We for sure don't need to waste all that money on that new cartridge. How do you have some weapons with one bullet that is a crap shoot and other troops with a different rifle and cartridge? Sounds like a real mess when the battle they think we are going to fight is not going to happen the the way the money mongers are selling it. Where are we going to have armies fighting other armies in a pitched battle and shooting at people in armor at 600 yards with battle rifles? We already have plenty of tools for that. Let the people that think WE need this stuff go fight themselves and see how it works out.

 

[MGYSGT]

The 5.56 did a good job in Viet Nam and other wars. The ammo is lighter, packed smaller and ships with less volume. Un less the 6.8 punches through armor, I don't see the gain.

 

[AR Shooter]

My 'prediction' is the complex case and very high 80,000psi pressure it requires to reach 3000fps MV with a 135gr bullet will be backed off to the SAMMI max of 65,000psi and they will live happily with 2750fps, or so. May take a year or two with all the attendant accidents, but it will get there.

 

[jackieschmidt]

Convert M4s to 20inch plus barrels and rechamber to 6mm Grendel, develop a good bullet to work on armor. Everybody gets one.

Probably a cost factor involved.

Although I have no idea in the difference in production cost of a standard hard ball round and a round with some type of hardened tip.

 

[LCazador]

The M7, 6.8 cartridge was needed to defeat level 4 armor at 600 yds. The 5.56 wasn't getting the job done. Also it's just for front line units. Rear area units will still carry a 5.56.
Requirements are written hoping for a pie in the sky solutions. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "We want to make industry work for new solutions" Sometimes those solutions are a bit of a stretch. The V-22 comes to mind.

What Tooley says here makes a lot of sense but frankly I think this is just a disguise to take away any curiosity from the really lethal weapons they are working on. We are on the verge of seeing some really incredible weapons.

 

[M-61]

Probably a cost factor involved.

Although I have no idea in the difference in production cost of a standard hard ball round and a round with some type of hardened tip.

If you’re asking about armor piercing bullets it’s not the tip.
Inside the core is a hardened steel miniature bullet shaped piece. That’s what defeats the armor. We were told it was tungsten but I don’t know if it’s true or not.
It is not visible from the outside. They have black paint on the nose of the bullet to identity its armor piercing. Different colors stand for different purposes.
I took a 50 BMG apart ( an AP one) used the steel piece as a center punch. It lasted for years.
On bombs it’s the same with the painted on colors. One yellow ring is TNT . Two rings is comp B. Three is Tritonal.
In 20mm and up it gets more interesting. Since they are all ‘bore safe’ for 30 yards. But a yellow nose (by far the most common) are HEI. (High explosive incindiary.
My info is somewhat dated.

 

[DaveTooley]

Probably a cost factor involved.

Although I have no idea in the difference in production cost of a standard hard ball round and a round with some type of hardened tip.

I guess you've never seen M855 green tip ammo on a steel target. Out to maybe a couple hundred yards it causes problems.

• M855 / SS109 (62gr "Green Tip"): Adopted by NATO in the 1980s, this 62-grain bullet has a steel penetrator tip, making it superior for penetrating light barriers and steel helmets compared to M193. It is often referred to as "green tip" and is designed for a 1:7 twist rate, such as that found in the M4 Carbine.

• M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR) (62gr): The current standard-issue duty round for the US Army, replacing the M855. It features an improved, environmentally friendly, copper-core projectile with a hard steel penetrator. It offers better hard-target penetration, more consistent performance, and reduced muzzle flash.

 

[JEFFPPC]

Only problem with the M16 is short barrels, poor bullets that are too light also, and twist needs to match the bullet and velocity. 600yd requirement is a joke.

 

[Steve Donlon]

I would like to know exactly who will profit from this change. There seems to be a hidden agenda for them to push this so hard. Some outside influence that is not to our benefit as a nation. It just does not seem right to spend so much money for so little gain. something is not right. Or I'm just paranoid.

 

[DaveTooley]

Guys this was driven by the military not private industry. Better external ballistics and reduced ammo weight was the goal. I watched a handful of ammo companies work for years before Sig was selected.

Why can't the front line warfighters move on from 75 year old technologies?

Cost is nothing compared to a new aircraft.
We have Gen 5 fighters and a new and improved one in development.
$20 billion for development and an estimated $300 million per plane.
That's expensive.

 

[Dgd6mm]

Thank you Dave.

 

[Walt Krafft]

Dave is spot on. It has been about 10 years in the developement from generating specs, initial prototypes, contract competition, selection, and now procurment. Total cost for everything is less than one B2 bomber.