5.56MM not getting it done in war on Terror

[Adjam5]

I just finished reading a (AP) article in my local paper regarding the ineffectiveness of the M855/5.56mm cartridge. Many soldiers are screaming for the 7.62/.308 round. Heavy bullets in urban environs are more effective is what is being said. The article states that the M855 rounds are not lethal enough to bring down an enemy decisively, and that puts troops at risk. In the Jan08 issue of Shooting Times mag, they did a Ours VS.Theirs, guns in Iraq article and all those interviewed wanted the .45 acp and the .308! One soldier said the 9mm is soo bad in combat only gets the enemies attention, so you can shoot him with the rifle:eek:.

In 2006 the Army surveyed 2600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. One quarter of those soldiers who carried the M4 carbine (14.5"bbl= reduced velocities) or M16 (18"bbl) wanted larger caliber bullets.

The M14 is in high demand and only Army snipers have them in the sandbox currently, but I don't think anytime soon the US Military will replace the M16. They are too heavily invested in it.

The Army says "shot placement is the key".

That might be true...But the .308 can do whatever the .223 can do bigger and better.

I think .223 is a marginal deer caliber, but people take deer with them all the time( with different bullets).

The .308 is better suited to stopping what you shoot at.

What do you think?

[Strut10]

Bigger is always better.

[toddyboman]

in those situations those men and women are going through give them anything they want.....I would want bigger too.

[wtnhunt]

in those situations those men and women are going through give them anything they want.....I would want bigger too.

Yep, got to agree with this. No question about it, would want the .308.

[JJL]

The men and women of the Armed Forces should have WHATEVER they need and want. I on the other hand am a sissy and would much prefer to sit on a hillside 1 mile away with one of these.

[wtnhunt]

Kind of interesting topic really Adjam, and have to wonder if the 5.56 was developed in part with the idea of injuring enemy soldiers. I know that I read that weight of the loaded rounds and recoil were the primary reasons why the 5.56 was adopted over the .308, but somewhere I either read or heard that it was a warfare tactic to critically injure one soldier and it then it takes two to carry that soldier off resulting in three removed from combat. That makes good sense, and it certainly worked against our troops. Would probably be a great concept if our enemy cared about their own and were not already suicidal. Really think though that the 5.56 is too light for combat.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

It wouldn't be a problem if we'd scrap the conventions that call for FMC rounds and start using soft points or hollow points instead.

[Rem308]

I know what I'd want...the .308 for sure. And as for the 9mm vs the .45, I'd want the .45 . Either way I'd want enough knockdown so that if I make a less than ideal shot, the knockdown/shock could still finish the job.

[OJR]

They really need the 308 with the 45! The 223 could be used if you were fighting a "NICE" war! It is a bunch of crap!

[toddyboman]

I on the other hand am a sissy and would much prefer to sit on a hillside 1 mile away with one of these.

Count me in for a mile away with one of those too;)

[Adjam5]

It wouldn't be a problem if we'd scrap the conventions that call for FMC rounds and start using soft points or hollow points instead.

The Hague Convention of 1899...No hollow point bullets or ammo where a soldier is less likely to survive.

Imagine... a nice war:rolleyes:.

I too have heard about he 5.56 being created to wound and deplete medical and manpower, also a soldier can carry more ammo of the 5.56 than the 7.62

I quote the article "The M855, Designed decades ago to puncture a Soviets soldiers helmet from hundreds of yards away and to have a more controllable round that the smaller stature soldiers could fire accurately as opposed to the M80 round 7.62X51/.308"

US Special Ops in Tampa are buying some of the SCAR Heavy Carbines that shoots the .308

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

The SCAR looks like a winner.

Lets hope our boys get it soon.

[Missed160]

I got out before the first Gulf war, some of my friends have been there for parts of both wars. The feedback they had was the same, they wanted M14''s/ Said a lot of the structures are mud/cinder block & the bigger rounds got through better..

I know the Army is now testing a replacement for the M16 (which I hated) - That is a new heavier caliber, about 6.5 mm..

Also, I loved the .45.

[Xbox360Player]

i'll do you one better give them one theas bad boys that will it will knock down a few terrorist

:D:D:D:D:D:D

[TexasDeerHunter]

Kind of interesting topic really Adjam, and have to wonder if the 5.56 was developed in part with the idea of injuring enemy soldiers. I know that I read that weight of the loaded rounds and recoil were the primary reasons why the 5.56 was adopted over the .308, but somewhere I either read or heard that it was a warfare tactic to critically injure one soldier and it then it takes two to carry that soldier off resulting in three removed from combat. That makes good sense, and it certainly worked against our troops. Would probably be a great concept if our enemy cared about their own and were not already suicidal. Really think though that the 5.56 is too light for combat.

I have heard the same thing about the 5.56 from alot of old timers, but have not found any documented evidence of the truth behind it. The documented explanation was the 5.56 allowed more ammo to be carried and was lighter weight, it was also proven to be very effective on humans. I know of several guys who served and had no complaints about about the .223/5.56 , in fact one of them is a special operations guy for DPS and his choice is a Colt M4 in .223. There is definately no flies on a .308, I wonder hom much truth there is to this report of troops wanting something bigger.

[Guest seets]

I think they should get one of these as there primary weapon

That shoots the 2 rounds to the left

And one of these as a side arm!

[Guest seets]

by the way

Thats the .50 caliber beowulf as the primary, and a s&w .500 magnum

Sorry for makin the pics so big

[bowana]

Remember, the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict was not what the 5.56 mm was specifically designed for. This campaign has lasted far longer than anticipated and the urban role has changed. I'm not sure how many of you have served in a conflict, but I carried an M60 in the jungles of Honduras in the 1980's and I can tell you that the 308 round carried in bulk is HEAVY. It also takes up alot more space in box mags. The Army in in the process if analyzing a new round for the M16 variants. It is based on the old Remington 30 case (Basically a 30-30 case that is rimless) and is known as the 6.8 SPC. It fires a .277 inch bullet (same as a 270 winchester) and is generally loaded with bullets in the 110-130 grain weight. I own an M-4 custom rifle I built from K-Tonics and it fires the round flawlessly. The mags I have hold 25 rounds (I also have some 5 round hunting mags). It is a VERY accurate rifle. I also own a TC Encore with a custom barrel and hand load 130 gr bullets for my son to deer hunt with. The rifle has virtually no recoil and the ballistics are certainly superior to the Lil' 223 round. I'll post a pic this week. I also own a Springfield SOCOM-16 in 308. If I were running around in a Hum-Vee all day I would want this rifle. With an Aimpoint on top, this rifle is deadly. But, If I had to tote the rifle around in the heat of the desert all day.......no way. I'd opt for the M-4 in 6.8SPC all day long. 45 vs 9mm? Great debate if you a civilian. I was a Military Police Investigator and carried the 45 until 1985 (they switched us to the 9's). Did not care. Because in combat, if you have to revert to a side arm it generally means two things: 1. Your SGLI Insurance is about to be paid 2. Johnnie is going to be tak'in care of your girl back home real soon!

[bowana]

Remember, the Iraq/Afghanistan conflict was not what the 5.56 mm was specifically designed for. This campaign has lasted far longer than anticipated and the urban role has changed. I'm not sure how many of you have served in a conflict, but I carried an M60 in the jungles of Honduras in the 1980's and I can tell you that the 308 round carried in bulk is HEAVY. It also takes up alot more space in box mags. The Army in in the process if analyzing a new round for the M16 variants. It is based on the old Remington 30 case (Basically a 30-30 case that is rimless) and is known as the 6.8 SPC. It fires a .277 inch bullet (same as a 270 winchester) and is generally loaded with bullets in the 110-130 grain weight. I own an M-4 custom rifle I built from K-Tonics and it fires the round flawlessly. The mags I have hold 25 rounds (I also have some 5 round hunting mags). It is a VERY accurate rifle. I also own a TC Encore with a custom barrel and hand load 130 gr bullets for my son to deer hunt with. The rifle has virtually no recoil and the ballistics are certainly superior to the Lil' 223 round. I'll post a pic this week. I also own a Springfield SOCOM-16 in 308. If I were running around in a Hum-Vee all day I would want this rifle. With an Aimpoint on top, this rifle is deadly. But, If I had to tote the rifle around in the heat of the desert all day.......no way. I'd opt for the M-4 in 6.8SPC all day long. 45 vs 9mm? Great debate if you a civilian. I was a Military Police Investigator and carried the 45 until 1985 (they switched us to the 9's). Did not care. Because in combat, if you have to revert to a side arm it generally means two things: 1. Your SGLI Insurance is about to be paid 2. Johnnie is going to be tak'in care of your girl back home real soon!

Here are the pics of the rifles I would want in Iraq! Left is my SOCOM16 (top) and M4 in 6.8 SPC. Right is a 6.8 vs. 5.56mm.

[deerhunter44]

I believe the .308 would be better.........I think us Americans should have a country wide vote

[TexasDeerHunter]

I believe the .308 would be better.........I think us Americans should have a country wide vote

I think us American's should leave it up to those who are defending our country and who's lives depend on it.

[WaCoyote]

Pros and cons for both calibers. I personally would rather carry 400 rounds of 5.56 than 200 rounds of 7.62 and be trapped in a stinking alleyway for a day and a half. The thing about the 5.56 is that it's so shootable. When I was in there were guys scared to shoot it, I can't imagine if it were a .308.

I'm all for it. Lighter rifle, lighter round so you can carry more. Imagine 110 degree weather, body armour, helmet, rucksack, water, and stuck in it for miles. Give me the lightest rifle possible. If you hit the target, it's dead.

On the other hand if I'm at a set spot with a sniper rifle and not out humpin all over, give me a .338 lapua or a 50

[wtnhunt]

The thing about the 5.56 is that it's so shootable. When I was in there were guys scared to shoot it, I can't imagine if it were a .308.

You gotta be kidding. What branch.:rolleyes:

Guessing maybe some guys who had/have no experience with a rifle might be intimidated, but come on. Would have to think in an AR configuration that the .308 would have extemely light recoil.

[Adjam5]

That would be interesting...AR-10's..Hmmm. They all know how to maintain, assemble/disassemble the M16 now, so it wouldn't even be like they are changing rifles...just calibers.

As WTNhunt mentioned, the 7.62 in the AR platform is most likely more controllable than the M14's were.

I don't think ergonomics were big back than when the M14 was developed. Firearms today fit the shooter better than ever before. Cost is most likely what is in the way a upgrade.

[WaCoyote]

I can't have an opinion?

What branch? What does it matter? But since you ask I was in the Army from 86-90. 82nd airborne division for part of it.

Not everybody grew up around guns. You must not have served or you'd know that not everyone is comfortable with them. I watched these young kids flynch when they dry fire for goodness sake. Not all, not most, but it happened. That IS the reason they switched. Shootability.I read a study once about how many guys actually even shot there weapon in combat in WWII. The numbers were very low. They wanted everyone to shoot. Then in Vietnam they did too much shooting hense the 3 round burst in modern 16's. There is no way they are going to switch every weapon to a .308 because it penetrates better or kills better in some folks eyes. I doubt we'll ever see a caliber change. Think of the pure logistics involved. Think of the politicians who's have to be convinced to part with the coin.

You want to send me to the desert for 1 month give me an M16 and as many rounds as I can carry. If shite hits the fan 400 rounds are better than 200.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[WaCoyote]

That would be interesting...AR-10's..Hmmm. They all know how to maintain, assemble/disassemble the M16 now, so it wouldn't even be like they are changing rifles...just calibers.

As WTNhunt mentioned, the 7.62 in the AR platform is most likely more controllable than the M14's were.

I don't think ergonomics were big back than when the M14 was developed. Firearms today fit the shooter better than ever before. Cost is most likely what is in the way a upgrade.

It'd be very controllable. The recoil is driven straight back so barrel climb is not as bad as on a 14. On the 14 the stock is below the barrel so the recoil causes barrel climb. On M 16 varients the barrel, reciever, stock, are all in a straight line which causes the rifle to recoil straight back cutting on muzzle climb.

I think you guys missunderstand what I'm saying. The 7.62 would be a more effective long range caliber. It would penetrate better. But most kills are close in combat and a 3 round burst from a tumbling 5.56 at 3000 fps will kill just as dead as a 7.62. For me it's purely how much ammo I could carry.