The US military needs something more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4

[Kelevra TAR-21]

Oh and btw I have worked with the Australian Army in Kuwait and Iraq. They don't even like the bull-pup. They hate mag changes with the AUG and dislike a few other features. They favor the M4 for its adaptability. This information doesn't come from some armchair commando, it comes from the Aussy soldiers them self's.

BTW

I was C 3/187 06-09[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... So The I.D.F. is just armchair commandos. Ok.... That is pretty ghetto.

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

.
Oh and 3/187[/QUOTE]
When I was reading about 3/187 one of their battles sounded like the movie Hamburger Hill. Turns out it was.

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

So are these men liars and armchair commandos? When talking about the 5.56.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHreIMu1d6M

In this one they are saying that the 5.56 a lot of times won't even penetrate a car windshield.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CrUARlmqso

 

[gunowner930]

Neither one of these videos is referring to the U.S. Armed Forces adopting either of these cartridges. Let's go over these videos.

Video 1: 6.8 SPC

The 6.8 SPC is a better cartridge than the 5.56x45, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

-They Claim that the 7.62x39 has double the kinetic energy of the 5.56x45, the only way that is true is if the 5.56x45 is coming out of a 5 inch barrel. Do a quick basic Wikipedia search on both cartridges and you'll see that they're a lot closer to one another in regard to kinetic energy. However, kinetic energy can vary greatly with different cartridge loads and barrel lengths. But 20 in barrel to 20 in barrel that is complete BS.

-They depict a scenario with body armor equipped bad guys attacking, but they don't specify what type of body armor. Soft armor? they both penetrate. Armor inserts such as e-sapi plates, neither penetrate. Is there a type of body armor that will defeat 5.56x45 but cannot defeat 6.8 SPC

-If the scenario is based on bad guys with body armor without specifying what type of body armor then it is a big fail.

-At 4:47 a guy is holding a 5.56x45 farther down than the 6.8 SPC, thus making the 6.8 SPC appear far larger and taller. This is a distortion because the 5.56x45 is actually taller than the 6.8x43.

This video made the 6.8 SPC appear to be more powerful than it actually is and the 5.56x45 appear to be weaker than it actually is.

Here is a more accurate depiction of both cartridges
6.8 mm Remington SPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Video 2: .50 Beowulf

-At 2:55 they're blasting cinder blocks with the Beowulf. Those blasts look similiar to what a 7.62x54r will do to a cinder block. A 62g M855 5.56x45 will do some damage to a cinder block as well, albeit not as much as the Beowulf, but I think you would be surprised to see what M855 will actually do to a cinder block. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't just chip it.

-At 4:23 A guy claims that the 5.56x45 regularly fails to penetrate car windshields. I'm not calling anybody a liar but I've heard the opposite in most instances from Iraq and/or Afghanistan combat vets. If you're willing to provide me a junk car, I'll be more than happy to put that to the test. M855 vs. standard car windshield? If I fire 10 rounds at 50 yds head-on I bet 10 rounds will penetrate.

-at 5:33 the guy claims that the 5.56x45 is an effective man-stopper??? That kinda contradicts everything they've said in both videos.

These guys seem to have a fetish for bulletweight. Velocity kinds matters a bit too.

I don't think that anything you read is going to convince you that the 5.56x45 is not a BB. If I can get it arranged I'll post a video this weekend of M855 (standard issue) 5.56x45 against cinder blocks and compare that to various handgun cartridges and possibly 7.62x39 if I can get ahold of my buddy and his SKS.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Arguing that the 5.56mm isn't an effective "man stopper" is like arguing the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect an individual right. It's completely unsupported by the evidence.

The Army has conducted many studies into the effectiveness of both the 5.56mm cartridge and the M4/M16. Each time they conclude the same thing, the 5.56mm is an effective combat round and the M4/M16 is an effective rifle system.

Here's a study of the effectiveness of the 5.56mm cartridge:
http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

Here's an article that cites several sources about the M4:
Examining the Complaints About American Rifle Reliability - NYTimes.com

As it turns out, all the stories about the M4 being an unreliable rifle or ineffective "man stopper" floating around the internet are mostly unsubstantiated. When combat vets are polled, the vast majority say the M4 served them quite well. So where are these horror stories coming from? Probably from the same place that the stories from decades ago came from claiming the M16 was made by Mattel Toys.

I'm in agreement with Socomike, it makes little sense to switch rifle systems right now. I don't believe anyone has come up with a rifle system decidedly better than the M4. The SCAR nor the ACR (two top contenders) offer anything substantial over the M4 in terms of functionality, reliability or effectiveness in combat. If anything, the 75th Rangers determined that the SCAR Mk16 wasn't any better, and in some cases worse, than the M4 and have since given up their Mk16's and gone back to the M4.

That's not to say the SCAR or ACR can't evolve into a superior weapon system, I'm sure they can given enough time and money. The question then becomes how much time and money do we want to spend trying to improve our service rifles performance? How much do we want to improve it? What exactly do we want to improve?

As for the bullpup, it's not something we should use as a primary issue weapon. It has too many negative points to be something our Soldiers and Marines should seriously consider. The fact it seriously hampers CQB, something our war fighters are regularly engaged in, is my primary complaint along with other usability issues making it inferior to a more traditional design.

 

[jmiller676]

In all seriousness, what about the 7.62 X 39? I know at longer distances it isn't as accurate but that is whywe have designated marksmen right? Just wondering because 7.62 X 39 is a bigger bullet, and with the proper platform and ammo the accuracy is going to be increased?

 

[MilitaryArms]

The likelihood of the U.S. adopting the 7.62x39 is right up there with a snowballs chance in Hell.

Even the Russians dropped the 7.62x39 in favor of the 5.45x39 decades ago.

 

[jmiller676]

The likelihood of the U.S. adopting the 7.62x39 is right up there with a snowballs chance in Hell.

Even the Russians dropped the 7.62x39 in favor of the 5.45x39 decades ago.

But the question is why?

 

[22lr]

In all seriousness, what about the 7.62 X 39? I know at longer distances it isn't as accurate but that is whywe have designated marksmen right? Just wondering because 7.62 X 39 is a bigger bullet, and with the proper platform and ammo the accuracy is going to be increased?

Its a Russian cartridge, so by default there isnt a snowballs change in Hades that we would seriously consider it.

 

[MilitaryArms]

22lr, bingo.

We would be far more likely to go with a more modern cartridge like the 6.5 or 6.8.

 

[jmiller676]

22lr, bingo.

We would be far more likely to go with a more modern cartridge like the 6.5 or 6.8.

So in other words...politics?

 

[MilitaryArms]

So in other words...politics?

There are better and more modern cartridges we could adopt. Our government wouldn't give any serious consideration to adopting an antiquated cartridge when better options exist.

Let's pretend the 7.62x39 was the pinnacle of small arms cartridge technology. Would we adopt it or find a way to copy it? We would likely find a way to copy it to avoid adopting a former rivals technology. Look what the Russians did when they realized .22 was the way of the future. Did they adopt the ballistically superior 5.56mm? No, they opted to go with a cartridge that worked for their military hardware of the time (AK) and developed it in house to clone the properties they wanted from the 5.56mm - that being a bullet that tumbled rapidly in soft tissue.

 

[jmiller676]

There are better and more modern cartridges we could adopt. Our government wouldn't give any serious consideration to adopting an antiquated cartridge when better options exist.

Let's pretend the 7.62x39 was the pinnacle of small arms cartridge technology. Would we adopt it or find a way to copy it? We would likely find a way to copy it to avoid adopting a former rivals technology. Look what the Russians did when they realized .22 was the way of the future. Did they adopt the ballistically superior 5.56mm? No, they opted to go with a cartridge that worked for their military hardware of the time (AK) and developed it in house to clone the properties they wanted from the 5.56mm - that being a bullet that tumbled rapidly in soft tissue.

Well either way they choose to go I don't have a doubt it will get the job done. Didn't become a super power by chance.

 

[MilitaryArms]

I suspect we'll be using the 5.56mm for the foreseeable future. If we adopt something like the Remington ACR that allows for quick caliber changes, then special operations teams may start using other calibers like 6.8, 6.5 or even 7.62x39 in special circumstances. But for general issue, the 5.56mm is likely here to stay for quite some time... perhaps until we move away from traditional rifles altogether.

Don't forget, 5.56mm is the standard cartridge not just for the US but all of our allies. We struggled for years to get everyone on board with the 5.56mm and the STANAG magazine so we had cartridge and magazine compatibility with the majority of the our allies. If we go changing our primary cartridge and the magazine that we use, it will cause a bit of a stink with our allies.

 

[jmiller676]

I suspect we'll be using the 5.56mm for the foreseeable future. If we adopt something like the Remington ACR that allows for quick caliber changes, then special operations teams may start using other calibers like 6.8, 6.5 or even 7.62x39 in special circumstances. But for general issue, the 5.56mm is likely here to stay for quite some time... perhaps until we move away from traditional rifles altogether.

Don't forget, 5.56mm is the standard cartridge not just for the US but all of our allies. We struggled for years to get everyone on board with the 5.56mm and the STANAG magazine so we had cartridge and magazine compatibility with the majority of the our allies. If we go changing our primary cartridge and the magazine that we use, it will cause a bit of a stink with our allies.

That wouldn't be anything new, but I see the point.

 

[Socomike]

But the question is why?

One of the many reasons is that the 7.62X39 round is old technology and really falling by the wayside as far as ballistics go. Sure it is a very capable round and used around the world by most 3rd world countries. However, When compared to the 5.56 (both from a 20inch barrel) the 7.62 and the 5.56 are very similar, with the 5.56 taking the lead the more the range increases. At short ranges, it has been proven time and time again that the 7.62 has better hard target penetration characteristics then older XM193 55grn 5.56 and slightly better then the m855 62grn 5.56. However, with the advancement in ammunition technology, and the creation of the MK262 Mod 1 77grn 5.56 sponsored and issued by SOCOM units, really pulled the 5.56 even with the 7.62X39 as far as close range penetration characteristics.

Any way you look at it, if the US military was going to adopt a new round, there are much better choices then the 7.62X39 out there today. If you are going to spend 1.5 billion (erroneous number) to switch calibers, why not spend 1.8 billion on the newest technology (also erroneous). My

Gunowner930 did a great job breaking down those videos and really pointing out the editing features that were put in to create drama.

I can assure anyone here that a 5.56, when shot from an M4/M16/M249, will penetrate a car windshield and turn the bad guys dome piece into hamburger meat inside 125 meters. The reports of people saying they dont penetrate a windshield are either missing, or have never shot a windshield and "heard" a real shooter in the field say so.

 

[jmiller676]

One of the many reasons is that the 7.62X39 round is old technology and really falling by the wayside as far as ballistics go. Sure it is a very capable round and used around the world by most 3rd world countries. However, When compared to the 5.56 (both from a 20inch barrel) the 7.62 and the 5.56 are very similar, with the 5.56 taking the lead the more the range increases. At short ranges, it has been proven time and time again that the 7.62 has better hard target penetration characteristics then older XM193 55grn 5.56 and slightly better then the m855 62grn 5.56. However, with the advancement in ammunition technology, and the creation of the MK262 Mod 1 77grn 5.56 sponsored and issued by SOCOM units, really pulled the 5.56 even with the 7.62X39 as far as close range penetration characteristics.

Any way you look at it, if the US military was going to adopt a new round, there are much better choices then the 7.62X39 out there today. If you are going to spend 1.5 billion (erroneous number) to switch calibers, why not spend 1.8 billion on the newest technology (also erroneous). My

Gunowner930 did a great job breaking down those videos and really pointing out the editing features that were put in to create drama.

I can assure anyone here that a 5.56, when shot from an M4/M16/M249, will penetrate a car windshield and turn the bad guys dome piece into hamburger meat inside 125 meters. The reports of people saying they dont penetrate a windshield are either missing, or have never shot a windshield and "heard" a real shooter in the field say so.

I got it...we just use all the AKs we pick up in the ME and give them the M4s/M16s..they don't have proper tools to maintain it...win-win.

 

[xmas_asn]

I was a fister attached to Angel company. Also spent some time with 3-320th FA, 3/75, and now with 1-329th INF. I reclassed somewhere along the way to 11b. I hold 11B, 13B, and 13F. It has been a long road. Good to see another Rakkasan around here.

Nice, What years? Do you remember Boffa? He was there 05 to like 2010.

Hmmm... So The I.D.F. is just armchair commandos. Ok.... That is pretty ghetto.

Are you IDF? Have you served with the IDF? Do you have any formal military experience?

.
Oh and 3/187

When I was reading about 3/187 one of their battles sounded like the movie Hamburger Hill. Turns out it was.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Coppin Charlie took Hamburger Hill. I know a couple of the guys that where there. To include PFC Frank. He liked to be called PFC for Poor F***ing Civilian.
It should have been B company battle hard that took the hill, but they climbed the wrong hill.

So are these men liars and armchair commandos? When talking about the 5.56.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHreIMu1d6M

In this one they are saying that the 5.56 a lot of times won't even penetrate a car windshield.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CrUARlmqso

No, Mack is a tool. He reads a script... we went over this...

And find me proof the 5.56 will not go threw a windshield.. and isn't the Tar21 chambered in 5.56?

And I still stand by my statement that the MARS is hot garbage.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I have close friends that have served in the suck. They have had no complaints about the effectiveness of the 5.56 caliber. Inside of 100 yards, I would grab my AK before my M4. Or if I had to bug out, and was limited on what I could take. In other words, I could not take the proper items to maintain my M4. Anything past 100 yards, I would want my M4 or a bolt action rifle.

 

[Mayday671]

Neither one of these videos is referring to the U.S. Armed Forces adopting either of these cartridges. Let's go over these videos.

Video 1: 6.8 SPC

The 6.8 SPC is a better cartridge than the 5.56x45, and I don't think anyone has argued otherwise.

-They Claim that the 7.62x39 has double the kinetic energy of the 5.56x45, the only way that is true is if the 5.56x45 is coming out of a 5 inch barrel. Do a quick basic Wikipedia search on both cartridges and you'll see that they're a lot closer to one another in regard to kinetic energy. However, kinetic energy can vary greatly with different cartridge loads and barrel lengths. But 20 in barrel to 20 in barrel that is complete BS.

-They depict a scenario with body armor equipped bad guys attacking, but they don't specify what type of body armor. Soft armor? they both penetrate. Armor inserts such as e-sapi plates, neither penetrate. Is there a type of body armor that will defeat 5.56x45 but cannot defeat 6.8 SPC

-If the scenario is based on bad guys with body armor without specifying what type of body armor then it is a big fail.

-At 4:47 a guy is holding a 5.56x45 farther down than the 6.8 SPC, thus making the 6.8 SPC appear far larger and taller. This is a distortion because the 5.56x45 is actually taller than the 6.8x43.

This video made the 6.8 SPC appear to be more powerful than it actually is and the 5.56x45 appear to be weaker than it actually is.

Here is a more accurate depiction of both cartridges
6.8 mm Remington SPC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Video 2: .50 Beowulf

-At 2:55 they're blasting cinder blocks with the Beowulf. Those blasts look similiar to what a 7.62x54r will do to a cinder block. A 62g M855 5.56x45 will do some damage to a cinder block as well, albeit not as much as the Beowulf, but I think you would be surprised to see what M855 will actually do to a cinder block. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't just chip it.

-At 4:23 A guy claims that the 5.56x45 regularly fails to penetrate car windshields. I'm not calling anybody a liar but I've heard the opposite in most instances from Iraq and/or Afghanistan combat vets. If you're willing to provide me a junk car, I'll be more than happy to put that to the test. M855 vs. standard car windshield? If I fire 10 rounds at 50 yds head-on I bet 10 rounds will penetrate.

-at 5:33 the guy claims that the 5.56x45 is an effective man-stopper??? That kinda contradicts everything they've said in both videos.

These guys seem to have a fetish for bulletweight. Velocity kinds matters a bit too.

I don't think that anything you read is going to convince you that the 5.56x45 is not a BB. If I can get it arranged I'll post a video this weekend of M855 (standard issue) 5.56x45 against cinder blocks and compare that to various handgun cartridges and possibly 7.62x39 if I can get ahold of my buddy and his SKS.

I shoot through 1/2" steel plate at 200 yards at times with M855, standard 62 grain FMJ without penetrator gets stopped but bulges way out on the backside. All the walls I shot at in Iraq were penetrated by the M855 and was nasty from a SAW. Granted our M-240B's were even more devastating. Go 300 Blackout boys, its a beautiful round.