Quoted: Quoted: NATO published a report in the late 80's to disuade some member countries from adopting 5.56 ammo citing the geography of Europe would greatly impair the performance of the 5.56. If you were defending positions in the alps and could have to engage targets wearing heavy clothes at 500 yards, would you want 5.56? 5.56 is an effective round 80 percent of the time, which is pretty good. By now, we should be able to design a better bullet. The Chinese did, and they suck.....

I think I read that report. It points out that although M855 has superior helmet penetrating capabilities due to its steel tip, the M80 out performes it in penetrating intermediate barriers like blocks. If the M80 were upgraded with a penetrator it would also outperform the M855 in penetrating armor. And with it's greater mass, it has more potential for future improvement in case armor technologies improve (though I'm sure the enemy will never have SAPI plates or better

Quoted: The M193 and AR15 combo is a fluke, IMO however, we were destined to downsize from the M14 and M80....The goal of military arms designers is always maximum firepower and minimum weight. The M14 is very unbalanced in this respect, whereas the AR15 is not. If the AR15 had not been affiliated with Colt, I am not sure if it would have ever evolved into the M16. Granted the M16 is an amazing rifle, but by the time there was any serious competiton, mainly the HK33 or Springfields .223 concept or even the Stoner 63, the govt had already aquired many AR15/M16 variants and it made more sense to evolve the rifles that were already in inventory than start over from scratch. Which was the same descision that was made before the A2 was adopted. The Stoner 63 would have granted the military the modular weapons system they so desperatly want  now forty years ago. The 63 is an amazing weapon, though not without fault. It wasn't soldier proof as it has lots of small parts required for conversion, though any decent developtment and testing would have solved this problem. There were even heavy 60-70 grain bullets developed for the 63 during Vietnam and there after. The HK 33 would have also been a solid contender. It was already in use by the Navy and being imported by H&R. While I am convinced that we would have eventually gone to a smaller, lighter weapon and round. I am not convinced that it was going to be the M16 and 5.56....there were alternatives, but it was the virtue of the weapon and the connections of Colt that kept it in the running. If Vietnam had never happend, the M14 and M80 would have lasted much longer, with probably the AR10 or FAL taking its place in the 70's. NATO published a report in the late 80's to disuade some member countries from adopting 5.56 ammo citing the geography of Europe would greatly impair the performance of the 5.56. If you were defending positions in the alps and could have to engage targets wearing heavy clothes at 500 yards, would you want 5.56? 5.56 is an effective round 80 percent of the time, which is pretty good. By now, we should be able to design a better bullet. The Chinese did, and they suck.....

I agree with everything you wrote here. I think that the AR18 which shared a number of the M16's good features but included a gas piston, was also considered to be superior and more reliable design but the M16 was already established. (note that the direct impingment system has never been adopted into any later weapon.) Like you said, we would have eventually gone to a smaller, lighter weapon and round, but it should have been something else with ammo a little more powerful than 5.56.

Quoted: I am an ardent proponent of the 6.5 Grendel. Its truely an amazing round, its light years ahead of the 6.8 SPC. Unfortunatly, the virtue of its design doesn't lend itself to used in belt fed weapons, which is a serious impediment. If you are going to adopt a "sniper" only cartridge, .408 Cheytac would be the way to go. The 6.5 Grendel would be an excellent starting point for the development of a new round. We didn't have the advantages of copying a predcessor like the Russians and Chinese did. Both countries took our concept and evolved it, especially the Chinese. We should return the favor and start where the 5.8x42 left off. A direct copy of the Chinese round with just a few tweaks would be a hugh improvement.... Incidently, most of the world was using a 6mm rifle round at one time and they eventually agreed it wasn't a sufficient man-stopper, which is how we got from the 6mm Lee Navy to the 30.06....Granted our bullet technology has advanced greatly and any 6mm we may adopt would be superior, I just though it was ironic that we are moving backwards with military ammo instead of forward.

From what I've read I also like the capabilities of the 6.5 Grendel. However its cartridge proportions and shape are due to it's main purpose of  fitting into  an M16 mag.  Though cheap and widespread, the flimsy M16 mag is a source of most of the M16s reliability problems. Why must new weapon designs be handicapped by it?

For example, if I'm not mistaken, during the recent SPC development they also came up with a 7mm cartridge that was optimal, but with an OAL too long for the M16 mag.

I say drop the restriction and design a new cartridge with an optimal size and shape for the new generation of military wepons. Yes, I know that would cost millions and add logistical complications to the SYSTEM but so does an F-22 or a new uniform.  After determining more or less the optimal size almost 80 years ago with the .276 Pedersen, I'd say it's way over due.

The M16+5/56 was originally purchased as a stopgap until the SPIW was ready and it has remained in service over 40 years. Maybe a 6.x mm replacement (with a piston) is worth doing and might even serve another 50 years until the future Aliens/OICW thing is ready?

Is this another 223 vs 308 thread? I cant stand to read another one.

Quoted: Quoted: True, but irrelevant.  As I tried to point out earlier, the AR-15 was not a success because engineers designed it, it was a success because militaries bought it.   The first stamped AKs (T1) were pieces of shit.  Thus the change to milled receiver until the AKM came out.

The problem with the Type I was not it's performance in the field, they can still be found in service to this very day.  There were some manufacturing hick ups that caused the original receiver design to be dropped.

Quoted: BS. The bullet is designed to fragment, not explode, and Stoner had nothing to do with that.

The bullet wasn't designed to fragment.  Fragmentation was  caused by the jacket seperating at the cannelure of the bullet upon impact.  This proved to be an asset to the round, but wasn't intentional.

Quoted: Quoted: BS. The bullet is designed to fragment, not explode, and Stoner had nothing to do with that. The bullet wasn't designed to fragment.  Fragmentation was  caused by the jacket seperating at the cannelure of the bullet upon impact.  This proved to be an asset to the round, but wasn't intentional.

I'll agree. I should have said the bullet fragments due to its design, an unexpected but welcome result. It certainly doesn't explode though.

OH HOW I WISH

that the Stoner 63 had been adopted and become an official American gun -- even with an eventual '86 ban, mere mortals would have been able to buy full auto Stoner 63s -- Bushmaster and RRA would be making Stoner 63A semi's

Just imagine how the world could have been

The Stoner 63 is a revolutionary weapon, even by today's standards. It is a "modular weapons system with capabilities mirroring those of the XM8, except built upon a decent weapon. Having to buy only 1 weapon from 1 manufacture makes logistics much easier, as does having everyone have the exact same weapon. albeit configured diferently. It also gives the soldiers an incredible amount of flexibility. Conducting an ambush? Configure your weapon as a beltfed SAW. Open, flat terrain? Break out your 20 inch HBAR and optic. MOUT? Attach your 11.5 inch barrel. This kind

of capability would offer a huge advantage to our troops. It would allow them to custom tailor thier weapons to the situation. This fact can be appreciated by anyone who has cleared rooms with a full size M249 or M16A2.  This capability wasn't lost on the Navy, who adopted the weapon and used it in Vietnam. The USMC was also very interested in the weapon, as was the big Army.
The USMC tested the weapon and wanted to procure them, but was unable to. The Army liked the weapon, but felt it wasn't soldier proof because of small and breakable/loseable conversion parts.

The USMC felt that ideology/training would neutralize this problem as would further development.
Its funny how we are soliciting technology we already had or used at one time, like 70 grain 5.56 bullets, a modular weapons system, and 6mm bullets*6mm SAW*....It would seem that a Stoner 63 chambered in 6mm SAW would satisfy our current militaries requirements. While the Stoner 63 wasn't perfect, it still was an amazing weapon. If the same effort that was applied to the M16 to make it the M16A1 it would have been even better. KAC owns the design now, and as of the early nineties it was still being shopped around to foriegn militaries, with production license being

negotiated for by an Asian country*the book was written in 91 and didn't mention the country or conclusion, but since its practically unheard of, im guessing it didn't work out* Had Colt not marketed the M16 so effectively at home and abroad, its unlikely it would have been as successful. Early AR15's and pre A1 M16s and carbines are inferior weapons compared to the 63.
The virtue of current M16's and carbines is unchalleneged, though its design and adoption led to teething problems. If the best weapon was always adopted for the job, the 63 would be our current infantry weapon. It would have beat out the M16, especially when it was at its weakest in the days of stick powder and no forward assist. Colt's influence had alot to do with the M16's success,

especially in the early days. My point is that it should have never been allowed to "grow" into one of the best weapons in the world because there were better alternatives. As Zragon pointed out, the direct impingement operating system has not been used in any subsequent weapons and is far from a popular or conventional system. Besides the Jlungmen and M16, can you name another DI weapon? A hybrid between the AR15 and 18 would have also been an excellent choice, in any caliber. AR15 and 18 hybrids are manufactured and widely used in Asia with great success. More direct hybrids are now being marketed to the military by HK, many years after the first one was concieved. Its ironic that all of our requirements were met by weapons/calibers we have had or used in the 60s and 70s.....

Quoted: Quoted: There were a lot of folks with their reputations invested in pushing the 7.62x51 and the M14 to be the NATO standard, and in that case they would have been affirmed. That would have never happened.  The M14 would have never became standard as it was obsolete before it was even put into service. If NATO would have stayed with 7.62 to this day, the FAL would be "standard" much like the AR-15 is today.

I do not agree.
The lighter weight 5.56mm system provided a 6.5 lb "weight budget" savings from the Soldier's 7.62mm load. McNamara needed this so every Soldier cold also be armed with the then new M72 LAAW (non-dedicated) anti-armor rocket (which was proven too heavy to launch safely from M14's, but had the lethality to meet the threat at that time).  That is because he and the members of his "think-tank" saw a heavy-mech war in Europe or the middle-east  the most likely US deployment.  So if we had lets say gone to Kuwait and/or Iraq in the 60's like we did in SEA, the 5.56 would have happened like it did.
As far as the Air Force, they were happy with the M1 Carbines they essential got for free after WWII and Korea.  However, the Army was taking them (the Air Force) to the "cleaners" for what they stated charging them to re-build them at Anniston Army Depot.  This pissed LeMay off, so he finds the AR and ...
(Modern day example of the say situation...the USMC was able to develope a new camo uniform and sell it to individual Marines for less $$ that what Marines were already paying for the old Woodland camo that "everyone, like the whole US Army" was wearing at the time, by takng the whole operation in-house and not trying to make a profit.  This was because of the add-on cost DLA was tacking on to fund their operations prodiving the Woodland's was being passed down to the end-users.  (And for all concerned, Marine recruits do receive their initial uniform & clothng issue for "free,"  After that, they must maintain that set of clothing on their own nickle, save for a smallish monthly clothing allowance for Enlisted personnel.)

but where do the zombies fit in?

Quoted: Quoted: was this just a fluke of history? You need to get your hands on a copy of The Black Rifle.  The Black Rifle, SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon That Never Was and Collector's Grade Publications' M14 book cover post WWII small arms development in the USA pretty comprehensively. Basically, SPIW and to a lesser extent the M16 were based on studies of infantry combat in WWII and Korea.  The conclusion was that hit probability could be increased at typical infantry ranges by firing volleys or salvos of flatter shooting rounds.  SPIW was supposed to replace the M14.  The M16 was purchased by the Army and Marines in a "one time buy" to act as a stopgap until SPIW was developed.  The requirements of the SPIW project were very unrealistic given the state of small arms technology, so the project failed.  This is all from my recollection of my reading of The Black Rifle.  The books speaks for itself, but I'm sure someone will correct me any minute now if I have misremembered anything .  I bought myself the SPIW and M14 books for Christmas...can't wait to read those.

Well, how does the fact that the great, great, great grandson of the SPIW program (OICW) has also failed to deliver anything to the Soldier?

Quoted: I agree - if the war at the time had been fought in an open area such as Afghanistan rather than the jungle, most likely the 5.56 would not have been adopted worldwide, maybe not even by the US. There were a lot of folks with their reputations invested in pushing the 7.62x51 and the M14 to be the NATO standard, and in that case they would have been affirmed.

Even with the limited re-fielding of M14s, the US military really hasn't seen a whole hell of allot of increasing in the range targets are engaged.   The long range doctrine of fire of rifle fire really most effective against larger, slow moving bodies of troops, ala World War 1 style assault on line.

Quoted: Quoted: Front line ARVN troops were carrying US-supplied Garands and M1 Carbines.  US advisors and combat units had M14 rifles.  The Hitch report claimed that the AR-15 was better than any of these, and only the Carbine was inferior to the M14.  After victory at Plei Me in 1965, Westmoreland began lobbying the Defense Department for general issue of the XM16E1, then congress, and finally leveraged the Senate to get the guns he wanted.  All of this was based on the perceived superiority of the AR-15 over the M14 in jungle and rice-paddy warfare.  The prevalence of bad press around the M14 was absolutely a factor in going to the AR-15.

IMHO, if Westmoreland made such a plea, he was using it as an excuse for repeatidly using the wrong tactics during the whole war.  If we had had leaders (Field Grade through General) with counter-insurgency warfare experiece running things, instead of Korea (i.e., commie North invades peace-loving Southerners...), we could have won in Viet-Nam with 03 Springfields.
I mean does anyone think the NVA had better DNA than their Southern cousins?  Of course not.  However, they did have Mau & the Chinese Commies who had experience beating back the Japanese (conventional vs un-conventional).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: was this just a fluke of history? You need to get your hands on a copy of The Black Rifle.  The Black Rifle II, SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon That Never Was and Collector's Grade Publications' M14 book cover post WWII small arms development in the USA pretty comprehensively. Basically, SPIW and to a lesser extent the M16 were based on studies of infantry combat in WWII and Korea.  The conclusion was that hit probability could be increased at typical infantry ranges by firing volleys or salvos of flatter shooting rounds.  SPIW was supposed to replace the M14.  The M16 was purchased by the Army and Marines in a "one time buy" to act as a stopgap until SPIW was developed.  The requirements of the SPIW project were very unrealistic given the state of small arms technology, so the project failed.  This is all from my recollection of my reading of The Black Rifle.  The books speaks for itself, but I'm sure someone will correct me any minute now if I have misremembered anything .  I bought myself the SPIW and M14 books for Christmas...can't wait to read those. Well, how does the fact that the great, great, great grandson of the SPIW program (OICW) has also failed to deliver anything to the Soldier?

Just to be clear, I was NOT promoting the SPIW.  The requirements - 60 (later 50) rounds of point ammo and 3 grenades in a weapon that weighed less than a loaded Garand were unattainable then.  As you point out, the OICW's failure demonstrates they are still unattainable.  IIRC, one of AAI's SPIWs, at 14 to 15 pounds came closer than OICW, but the loaded flechette cartridges only weighed about 100 grains (and only launched a 10 or 11 grain flechette).  

My point was people at Armalite got informaton on those WWII and Korea studies and tests of 30-06 casings and prototype 7.62x51 casings necked down to smaller calibers, including .22, and shortened .222 Remington casings in M1 Carbines.  The Infantry Board was quite impressed with the studies and results of the tests because lighter, higher velocity ammo increased per round hit probability and permitted the infantryman to carry more ammo and (depending on the ammo selected) a lighter weapon, for a more lethal overall system.  Armalite used the information from those studies and tests when they turned the AR10 into the AR15.  Again, this is just from my reading of The Black Rifle.  The Black Rifle II and SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon That Never Was

By the way, I'd be interested in how the SPIW people concluded a 10 or 11 grain flechette at 4,500 fps was as lethal as 30-06 at even the shorter combat ranges indicated by the WWII and Korea studies.  I assume they just used penetration as a proxy for lethality.  Does anyone know if they did animal tests.  SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon That Never Was says the flechettes did not fragment, although they often bent.

Personally, I think the optimal round is somewhere in between the Chinese 5.8 round and 7.62x51.  British studies that led to the EM2 suggested 7mm provided the best combination of penetration and lethality in a ball (jacketed lead - no hardened penetrator) round.  The Soviets came to a similar conclusion, but stayed with 7.62 because of the existing manufacturing base.  John Garand designed the original M1 around .276 Pedersen, but we decided to stay with 30-06 because everyone knew a war was coming and we had lots or 30-06 ammo.  7mm comes up over and over in modern small arms history.  I assume there's a reason for that.

I guess we are doomed to get these nonsense threads what with all the teenage video-gamers, paint-ballers and air-softers joining ARFCOM.

Those of us who have been shooting ARs for 20 years or more know better.

And for the ones who dream of Grendels, 6.8s or some optimal "in between the 5.56 and 7.62" cartidge...you are just re-inventing the wheel. Its called the 7.62X39 and has lousy ballistics and less wounding power at combat ranges than the 5.56.

Shit, you really need to re-read Black Rifle more closely...your chance of even SEEING the enemy beyond 300 meters is about nil. Worried about Taliban hopping about on the mountain side? Rifle = useless. What you need is air, arty, or supporting MGs and grenade launchers.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: was this just a fluke of history? By the way, I'd be interested in how the SPIW people concluded a 10 or 11 grain flechette at 4,500 fps was as lethal as 30-06 at even the shorter combat ranges indicated by the WWII and Korea studies.  I assume they just used penetration as a proxy for lethality.  Does anyone know if they did animal tests.  SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon That Never Was says the flechettes did not fragment, although they often bent.

I thnk the flectette lethality thing was pretty mythical.  Why they looked at extremely lightweight projectiles was to increase controlability on full auto to increase hit probability.  This coupled with a high cyclic rate burst looks real good on paper, problem is, the Soldier (under combat stress, etc.) still has to be pretty much be on target and apply trigger squeeze, marksmanship fundamentals, etc., to hit another human at any distance, even with a Salvo weapon.
I have fired flachee bursts and they are unreal as to nil recoil.  You can simulate the same thing with some full caliber frangible 5.56mm rounds.  We tested some in shooting houses in the late 80's that had a projectile weight of like 17 gr.  A full auto burst of even 30 rounds could be kept in a 6" circle at 2 meters because there was almost no recoil or muzzle rise.  Say is true with a M203 hooked under your rifle, with all the aded mas, your controlabilty increases expedentually.

One issue with flectettes was dealing with their sabot segments in front of and to the sides of one's muzzle.  On one prototype, these "petals" as they were called were made from fiberglass.  The twist rate was very slow, like 1:18 so the sabot would gently move away from the dart just clear of the muzzle.  Well, there is nothing "gentle" about a long (like 1") piece of  fiberglass moving at 4,100 fps.  These things were also non-ballistic, so they veered off to the sides and presented a hazard to personnel who were adjacent to the firer on either side, but just a few meters forward.

And on the OICW, the main issue we had with it was that the entire ballistic solution was based on a laze the shooter had made just prior to cartridge ignition and then in-bore programing.  So if the shooter had not applied good marksmanship fundamentals when he lazed because of stress, etc., then he would miss even though the round had a small bursting radius.  Then if you look at the first 300 meters of 5.56mm trajectory, and assume the shooter did a perfect laze every time, but in this case just pulled the trigger of his M16, he'd hit the taget with the 5,56 round.  By the way, this can be demonstrated with MILES gear since its laser beam widens with range, and the blank cartridge it fires has no recloil or muzzle climb.  So if a MILES equiped rifle has its trigger jerked, or is fired with poor sight alinment: you miss.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: was this just a fluke of history? By the way, I'd be interested in how the SPIW people concluded a 10 or 11 grain flechette at 4,500 fps was as lethal as 30-06 at even the shorter combat ranges indicated by the WWII and Korea studies.  I assume they just used penetration as a proxy for lethality.  Does anyone know if they did animal tests.  SPIW: The Deadliest Weapon That Never Was says the flechettes did not fragment, although they often bent. I thnk the flectette lethality thing was pretty mythical.  Why they looked at extremely lightweight projectiles was to increase controlability on full auto to increase hit probability.  This coupled with a high cyclic rate burst looks real good on paper, problem is, the Soldier (under combat stress, etc.) still has to be pretty much be on target and apply trigger squeeze, marksmanship fundamentals, etc., to hit another human at any distance, even with a Salvo weapon. I have fired flachee bursts and they are unreal as to nil recoil.  You can simulate the same thing with some full caliber frangible 5.56mm rounds.  We tested some in shooting houses in the late 80's that had a projectile weight of like 17 gr.  A full auto burst of even 30 rounds could be kept in a 6" circle at 2 meters because there was almost no recoil or muzzle rise.  Say is true with a M203 hooked under your rifle, with all the aded mas, your controlabilty increases expedentually.

If the SCHV theory was right then how come rounds smaller and faster than 5.56 (and 0.02mm doesn't count ) weren't later adopted? I remember reading an article by Dr Fackler about the estimated wounding potential of the flachette rounds (the ultimate SCHV round) submitted in the ACR tests in the 80s as being less than that of 5.56.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: There were a lot of folks with their reputations invested in pushing the 7.62x51 and the M14 to be the NATO standard, and in that case they would have been affirmed. That would have never happened.  The M14 would have never became standard as it was obsolete before it was even put into service. If NATO would have stayed with 7.62 to this day, the FAL would be "standard" much like the AR-15 is today. I do not agree. The lighter weight 5.56mm system provided a 6.5 lb "weight budget" savings from the Soldier's 7.62mm load. McNamara needed this so every Soldier cold also be armed with the then new M72 LAAW (non-dedicated) anti-armor rocket (which was proven too heavy to launch safely from M14's, but had the lethality to meet the threat at that time).  That is because he and the members of his "think-tank" saw a heavy-mech war in Europe or the middle-east  the most likely US deployment.  So if we had lets say gone to Kuwait and/or Iraq in the 60's like we did in SEA, the 5.56 would have happened like it did.

OK, I understand the 300m envisioned maximum range limit on the WW3/Heavy-Mechanized battlefield that you and others here have explained. However, since then much of the infantry fighting has occured against small guerilla forces and in the urban environment as well as the countryside.

In today's fighting I think that even conventional units are operating in smaller groups, without supporting weapons in 7.62 or bigger. Do US forces today always have the ability to call in support fire immediately? If you spot a guerilla on the next hilltop, will he be there in 5 minutes when the arty/mortar/air hits, or even the minute it takes to get a sniper or MG into position. If you are at a roadblock and see a car trying to speed away, will you have time to call in heavier weapons? Or if searching a farm you encounter some guy hiding in a shed with an AK47, wouldn't it be nice if your rifle ammo could penetrate the junk he's hiding behind?

There seems to be a need to reach out more on the squad level and thus the spread of the designated marksmen concept.  And it's a good idea to have DMs use the same caliber as the rest of the squad, although I understand that there is an attempt to equip the SAM and SDM with the 77 gn mk262 to maximize their accuracy potential. In the IDF, the DM use a standard m16A2E3 /M855 with an 4x32 ACOG. Almost every small operation (checkpoint, jeep/foot patrol etc) these days goes out with a DM while 7.62 weapons are infrequent. I can easily track people beyond 500m, especially in hilly terrain, but the M855 limits the effective range to @500m.

55 gn 5.56 was increased to 62 gn M855 to improve it armor penetration, and to 77gn for longer range (but with a bigger drop). It seems to be maxed out as far as to fitting the M16 mag OAL restriction. But is the 5.56 the optimal caliber for the infantry soldier? Why not go to 6.x with greater range/penetration for GP?

Also, for how much longer can we avoid the need for the standard infantry weapon to be able to punch through body armor?

Quoted: I guess we are doomed to get these nonsense threads what with all the teenage video-gamers, paint-ballers and air-softers joining ARFCOM. Those of us who have been shooting ARs for 20 years or more know better. And for the ones who dream of Grendels, 6.8s or some optimal "in between the 5.56 and 7.62" cartidge...you are just re-inventing the wheel. Its called the 7.62X39 and has lousy ballistics and less wounding power at combat ranges than the 5.56. Shit, you really need to re-read Black Rifle more closely...your chance of even SEEING the enemy beyond 300 meters is about nil. Worried about Taliban hopping about on the mountain side? Rifle = useless. What you need is air, arty, or supporting MGs and grenade launchers.

7.62x39 is not the the optimal middle between 5.56 and 7.62NATO. It's slower and has a big drop. However it is very effective at penetrating intermediate barriers like cars at short range and terrorists have found it plenty leathal for roadway shootings.

Will you always have air, arty, or supporting MGs and grenade launchers at your call? If they are so effective why does Mr.Taliban get away like during Anaconda?

Quoted:I do not agree. The lighter weight 5.56mm system provided a 6.5 lb "weight budget" savings from the Soldier's 7.62mm load. McNamara needed this so every Soldier cold also be armed with the then new M72 LAAW (non-dedicated) anti-armor rocket (which was proven too heavy to launch safely from M14's, but had the lethality to meet the threat at that time).

Are you saying that the LAW warhead was originally designed to be for a 7.62 rifle-launched grenade?

Quoted: Quoted: I agree - if the war at the time had been fought in an open area such as Afghanistan rather than the jungle, most likely the 5.56 would not have been adopted worldwide, maybe not even by the US. There were a lot of folks with their reputations invested in pushing the 7.62x51 and the M14 to be the NATO standard, and in that case they would have been affirmed. Even with the limited re-fielding of M14s, the US military really hasn't seen a whole hell of allot of increasing in the range targets are engaged.   The long range doctrine of fire of rifle fire really most effective against larger, slow moving bodies of troops, ala World War 1 style assault on line.

Do you not find incidences where more penetration is required (ie through cars, bushes)? Isn't the USMC deploying SAMs with mk262 ammo to increase effective fire to 600m?

Quoted: If the SCHV theory was right then how come rounds smaller and faster than 5.56 (and 0.02mm doesn't count ) weren't later adopted? I remember reading an article by Dr Fackler about the estimated wounding potential of the flachette rounds (the ultimate SCHV round) submitted in the ACR tests in the 80s as being less than that of 5.56.

Because there is obviously a point of diminishing returns.

Or I can turn the argument back on you. If 7.62 is so good, why not go bigger? Like .50 caliber? It's a ridiculous point you see.

Quoted: OK, I understand the 300m envisioned maximum range limit on the WW3/Heavy-Mechanized battlefield that you and others here have explained. However, since then much of the infantry fighting has occured against small guerilla forces and in the urban environment as well as the countryside.

Re-read "Black Rifle". Under typical battlefield conditions you have very little chance of even SEEING an individual enemy soldier due to terrain features.

Quoted: If you spot a guerilla on the next hilltop,

Any rifle that can hit a guy on a distant hilltop will not be an "assault rifle". It won't even be a "designated marksman rifle". It will be a "sniper rifle"

Quoted: There seems to be a need to reach out more on the squad level and thus the spread of the designated marksmen concept.  And it's a good idea to have DMs use the same caliber as the rest of the squad,

DMs are good things to have. The Russians had one in every squad...and they were NOT issued with the same caliber as the rest of the squad! So why stick to the "same caliber" theory?

Quoted: Also, for how much longer can we avoid the need for the standard infantry weapon to be able to punch through body armor?

If we issue a rifle that can punch through current and future body armor, it will no longer be an "assault rifle"; the recoil will be too severe for automatic fire....so what you are saying is that the assault rifle concept is now obsolete? I think you are wrong.

Quoted: Quoted:I do not agree. The lighter weight 5.56mm system provided a 6.5 lb "weight budget" savings from the Soldier's 7.62mm load. McNamara needed this so every Soldier cold also be armed with the then new M72 LAAW (non-dedicated) anti-armor rocket (which was proven too heavy to launch safely from M14's, but had the lethality to meet the threat at that time).   Are you saying that the LAW warhead was originally designed to be for a 7.62 rifle-launched grenade?

Yes, as threat armor thickened, effective warheads became heavier, and a recoiless, disposable rocket launcher approach was fielded with the more effective warhead.  This warhead weight had earlier evolved into a "reluctance to fire" issue from a rifle when aimed from the shoulder.  Thw alternative of firing a muzzle launched grenade with a rifle buttstock against the ground had a low hit probability.  Ironically, this was one test we (USMC) had to pass to keep the Army happy with our M16A2 development.  The new A2 buutstock had to pass a test in the cold chamber (-65) with the butt up against a steel covered brick wall.  This is when the rear receiver ring of the M16A1 receiver broke, so imagine what it would do to your shoulder.  So we had Colt increase the diameter there and the A2 type lower passed.  So I assumed that these grenades were in inventory for contingency purposed as late as 1982, even though the M72 LAAW was fully fielded at the time.  Also note that the M16A1, and its plastic buttstock of the 1980's era, would have obviously failed the same cold weather firing test.  So I will let you draw your own conclusions about why the Army insisted on such a test for the A2...

Why would the US improve its small arms when IED's are the #1 killer?  Its not weak rifles that are getting guys killed, its old artillery shells rigged to detonate with a cell phone.  The 556 cartridge is just a sideshow in defense funding, armor, heavy weapons, and other high tech stuff are more important.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:I do not agree. The lighter weight 5.56mm system provided a 6.5 lb "weight budget" savings from the Soldier's 7.62mm load. McNamara needed this so every Soldier cold also be armed with the then new M72 LAAW (non-dedicated) anti-armor rocket (which was proven too heavy to launch safely from M14's, but had the lethality to meet the threat at that time).   Are you saying that the LAW warhead was originally designed to be for a 7.62 rifle-launched grenade? Yes, as threat armor thickened, effective warheads became heavier, and a recoiless, disposable rocket launcher approach was fielded with the more effective warhead.  This warhead weight had earlier evolved into a "reluctance to fire" issue from a rifle when aimed from the shoulder.  Thw alternative of firing a muzzle launched grenade with a rifle buttstock against the ground had a low hit probability.  Ironically, this was one test we (USMC) had to pass to keep the Army happy with our M16A2 development.  The new A2 buutstock had to pass a test in the cold chamber (-65) with the butt up against a steel covered brick wall.  This is when the rear receiver ring of the M16A1 receiver broke, so imagine what it would do to your shoulder.  So we had Colt increase the diameter there and the A2 type lower passed.  So I assumed that these grenades were in inventory for contingency purposed as late as 1982, even though the M72 LAAW was fully fielded at the time.  Also note that the M16A1, and its plastic buttstock of the 1980's era, would have obviously failed the same cold weather firing test.  So I will let you draw your own conclusions about why the Army insisted on such a test for the A2...

When I did my regular service in the 80s, 5.56 rifle grenades were used much more frequently than M203s. Back then we were armed with Galils but each platoon had one or two guys with the M16A1/M203. I don't know if this is because the rifle grenades were considered better or for financial reasons as they were locally manufactured. I've heard that it was not recommended to shoot rifle grenades from the M16 because it was less durable than the Galil, and I never saw it done.

Today the infantry only use M16s and I haven't seen rifle grenades in years. On the other hand, in riots rubber bullet loads are shot using the rifle grenade cartridge by the M16A1 quite frequently. We are told that it isn't safe to shoot with the shorter 14.5 barrels but I've seen that done also. This has much less recoil than the grenades though.

The rifle grenades did have the advantage of a larger warhead vs the M203 which could penetrate an APC almost like the LAW, and the flexibility (especially the newer bull-trap/thru types) that any rifleman could use it, not just the guy with the GL. On the other hand, it was difficult to aim and in practice only one or two dedicated "grenadiers" in the platoon would shoot it.

Quoted: Quoted: I thought that the trend was also going towards more powerful weapons, not just lighter. through quantifying the average combat distance the need for "powerful" long arms was nullified. the parameters of the 5.56 came out of the ALCLAD studies, not a study of war but of wounds. a larger volume of fire, it is definitely less powerful than the round it replaced. yes firepower over firepower I don't know what the SMITE function is the radio, aka the god gun to clarify something someone else said, the call for what would be the AR15 was put out by CONARC long before LeMay got into the picture and those are where the scaled down AR10s came from.  The military asked for an SCHV rifle, that's what they got. Quoted: If the SCHV theory was right then how come rounds smaller and faster than 5.56 (and 0.02mm doesn't count he bc flechettes are a terrible design with which to wound, velocity has nothing to do with it. You really should read some of the books people are pointing out to you,all of this has been discussed.

I’m not trying to be argumentative or debate historical facts, and I respect and appreciate what you and others here are saying. I’m just a basic M16 user who spends (too much) time reading about firearms. Perhaps I'm not expressing myself clearly.

I already knew that the M16 was designed before and not for Vietnam and accept the widely recognized conclusion that the majority of infantry combat is well under 300 meters and that this is based on many studies including the analysis of US casualty reports from WW1, WW2 and Korea that showed that less than half the casualties were caused by aimed bullet fire, etc. However even at those ranges, how many of those casualties were from clean hits and how many were actually caused by bullets or bullet fragments that first went through or ricocheted off an intermediate barrier?

What I’m trying to say is that in Vietnam where the M16/M193 combo made its combat début, the average engagement range was very close, maybe tens of meters, well below 300m. Would the M16/M193 have been as effective on the sub-300m conventional-mech battlefield envisioned by US planners in the 50s/60s as people here have explained? I’m not sure. It seems that the AK47 with its non-fragmenting M43-but better penetration-might have been superior in that environment. Maybe the Soviets agreed though, because they switched to 5.54x39. Of course didn't the Soviets in WW2 also made an exact copy of a damaged B17, complete with its repair patches?hemusthave with the SF guys for both long range sniping and better terminal performance up close on unarmored folks. Maybe a slightly larger 6.x bullet would be a better all-around performer, without the unacceptable recoil or weight penalty of the 7.62 NATO?

I have a suspicion that in various studies like SCHV, that compared 5.56 vs 7.62 effectiveness, the focus was on easily-measured metrics like hit probability or number of hits per given ammo weight  load. Could this be why the 5.56 was determined to be the most effective? Again, why have other projects repeatedly concluded that the optimal size for an infantry cartridge would be between 6-7mm like: .25/.276 Pedersen in 30s, 7mm by Russians/Germans in WW2 (though they stayed with their rifle caliber for simplified production), 7x43 British in the 50s, 6.25x43 British and 6x45 SAW in the 70s, and more recently, the 6.5x39 Grendel and 6.8x43 SPC and "ideal" 7x47 (IIRC) SPC?

Like many here have pointed out, it’s often difficult to see the target in combat, so riflemen in reality do shoot  through intermediate cover or concealment. I’m sure that it’s easier to shoot accurately faster with the 5.56, however I question whether a clean hit on a range, equals a hit in combat?

Once in a training exercise, we discovered a “new” unmarked old soviet truck that had just been dragged in to the area. Boys being boys, we shifted the direction of our assault so that the truck would be right in the middle. It got a good treatment of 5.56 and I gave it at least 50 rounds of 7.62 from the MAG. Afterwards we looked it over. The front of the truck and hood was peppered with various sized holes, but inside the cab, the holes that got thru the engine and dashboard were the 7.62. This is not scientific proof, but as a grunt, I like maximum penetration.

IIRC, around 1997 when the IDF brought in the 5.56 Negev LMG to replace the two MAGs in the platoon, they told us that its green-tip M855 ammo was just as, if not more, effective than the 7.62 of the MAG up to 800m. About four years later a MAG were brought back to the platoon to supplement the two lighter Negevs. Nobody likes added weight so there must be some good reasons for this?

I also accept the textbook solution of calling in supporting weapons/air/arty, however I doubt that even for US forces, whether in full combat or in asymetric conflicts where you have complete superiority, these will always be available and in time. Many times all you have is what you have.

Quoted: Quoted: Do you not find incidences where more penetration is required (i.e. through cars, bushes)? we also find incidences where less penetration is required/desired

I’m looking at the AR from the perspective of a regular infantry soldier, not as a hostage-rescue SF, SWAT or LE type. If I have to consider shooting at someone in a crowd, I take into account that the bullet will continue (even 5.56).

Also, I think that the 5.56 soft-tissue terminal ballistics issue has been getting too much focus lately. As scientific as the ballistic gel tests are, they only give a repeatable estimate of the wound. Fragmentation is good to have, but you don’t always get it. If anything I’ve learned from all the heated Internet debates and anecdotes about calibers is that there’s no such thing as a guaranteed one-shot-stop, (not even with 50 cal or 40mm per STLRN).

Also, I think the lethality of plain old FMJ rounds like M80 or the Russian 7.62x39 have been greatly underrated. Both the popular Black Hawk Down and We Were Soldiers Once books are full of graphic examples of US troops being severely and complicatedly wounded (and taken out of the fight) by 7.62x39 rounds that didn’t fragment. Just because we are lucky that the typical AK47 users these days tend to use some questionable marksmanship techniques, doesn’t mean that it is ineffective. I’m sure that a fight against, say, Finnish troops armed with Valment M62/M95s would give 7.62x39 a more deadly reputation.

Quoted: Because there is obviously a point of diminishing returns. Or I can turn the argument back on you. If 7.62 is so good, why not go bigger? Like .50 caliber? It's a ridiculous point you see.

So you consider the 5.56x45 to be the optimal size for an assault rifle cartridge? I'm not trying to say that it sucks nor that the 7.62x51 is king either. Several projects conducted by individuals whom I assume to be skilled and experienced professionals (not me), came up with 7x43, 6.25x43, 6x45 as an ideal size for a GP infantry round, not to mention the recent 6.5 and 6.8 designed to fit the 5.56 AOL.

Is it impossible to consider that there might be a better balanced for a GP cartridge between the two extremes of 5.56 and 7.62?

Quoted: Re-read "Black Rifle". Under typical battlefield conditions you have very little chance of even SEEING an individual enemy soldier due to terrain features. Any rifle that can hit a guy on a distant hilltop will not be an "assault rifle". It won't even be a "designated marksman rifle". It will be a "sniper rifle"

I disagree. The "typical battlefield conditions" changes all the time. It is not always the high-intensity conventional-mech battlefield that the cited studies usually refer to. I might be searching a house, climb to the roof and spot a guerilla in a grove at the edge of the town. Why can't a DM based on an AR hit a target 500-700m away? SAM and SDM rifles with 77 gn 5.56 are designed to reach out to 600m. There are 6.5 Grendel rounds that appear to shoot as far and flatter than 7.62.

Quoted: DMs are good things to have. The Russians had one in every squad...and they were NOT issued with the same caliber as the rest of the squad! So why stick to the "same caliber" theory?

Again I disagree, I don't know what the size of a Russian squad is but when the SHTF it's better to be able to use your buddy's ammo, especially when talking about operations with small units of 3-5 soldiers. That's also a reason why I'd also keep the SAW in the same caliber. And isn't that why US snipers usually stick to 7.62?

The big advantage to using a standard AR like the M16 with an ACOG  for a DM is that you can perform the same tasks as a regular rifleman, which is still the DM’s primary role. The SVD with its scope, is much less handy and seems more like a more durable, semi-auto sniper rifle with ok accuracy.

Quoted: If we issue a rifle that can punch through current and future body armor, it will no longer be an "assault rifle"; the recoil will be too severe for automatic fire....so what you are saying is that the assault rifle concept is now obsolete? I think you are wrong.

I'm not saying that the AR concept is obsolete, just that it could be better realized. Taking advantage of the larger mass and increased sectional density of a 6.x mm bullet weighing 100-120 gn, a GP bullet with better penetration, long-range ballistics, AND still having early tumbling/fragmenting characteristics for wounding like the 5.56, could be designed WITHOUT an unacceptable increase in recoil and weight. Since full-auto fire is used very infrequently and at mostly very close range; I see the prominence of the AR mainly for its capability for delivering accurate and effective rapid semi-auto fire.

A larger caliber size would also facilitate development of different specialized bullets if such a need arrises, like for armor-piercing or long-range sniping applications.

The corollary to your argument is that if we don't improve the AR ammunition, when then enemy does start wearing current and future body armor, we won't be able to arm the infantry with ARs anymore.

One more point hehttp://www.hkpro.com/image/g11compare.jpg

Quoted: I have a suspicion that in various studies like SCHV, that compared 5.56 vs 7.62 effectiveness, the focus was on easily-measured metrics like hit probability or number of hits per given ammo weight  load. Could this be why the 5.56 was determined to be the most effective? Again, why have other projects repeatedly concluded that the optimal size for an infantry cartridge would be between 6-7mm like: .25/.276 Pedersen in 30s, 7mm by Russians/Germans in WW2 (though they stayed with their rifle caliber for simplified production), 7x43 British in the 50s, 6.25x43 British and 6x45 SAW in the 70s, and more recently, the 6.5x39 Grendel and 6.8x43 SPC and ideal 7x47 (IIRC) SPC?

This goes back to my earlier point. The SCHV tests were performed by engineers, working on their own initiative, to create a round to replace the M1 Carbine and the sub-machineguns. Had they been trying to  replace 7.62x51, they would never have received what little funding they did.

While the US was developing the 7.62x51, other countries such as England were experimenting with intermediate rounds in the .270 caliber range. Many of the Ordnance Dept engineers thought that the intermediate round was closest to ideal for a main battle rifle, but our own brass pushed the 7.62x51 and essentially forced NATO to standardize on it.   In other words, it turned into a giant clusterfuck to justify the multiples of millions of dollars they had spent developing a round that was really no improvement over .30-06, and developing a rifle that was essentially a Garand with a detachable box mag. That ended the intermediate caliber development for the most part, and that was also the motivation for killing the SCHV program and even sabotaging and rigging the tests. Dr Fred Carten had a hand in this as well as some of the brass in Ordnance, because they knew that the big Govt arsenals were being looked at as obsolete compared to using outside sources for research and development in small arms, and they were determined to save them (to no avail in the end).

Quoted: One more point . If the SCHV conclusions were the only factor for effective ammo, this should have been the next step. www.hkpro.com/image/g11compare.jpg

Caseless ammo would provide a significant "system" size/weight advantage.  Unfortunately, the Germans chased after it in its worst environment--the individual battle rifle.  Had they chased after practical caseless weapons in the medium or meavy machine gun mode, the system savings in brass and steel links would be really significant.  In that way some of the bugs would have been worked out.  For example, unlike battle rifels, individual machine gun cartridges should not require ever to be touched by human hands.  Their ammo could be in sealed cans that are opened by action of loading the MG.  
You could also have the same caliber medium and heavy MG, lets say in 10mm.  So in the medium MG, same bullet, but only one caseless propellant change per round.  In the HMG, same 10mm bullet, but two or three propellant pellets being chambered per round.

Is this another 223 vs 308 thread? I cant stand to read another one.

In the true spirit of ARFCOM, I got both!  

However, in my own little civilian scenario,  I end up shooting a lot more .22LR than .223 -- works great as a squirrel gun!  (my sub-sub calibre configuration)

I love  my AR10, but I don't think I could shoot one full -auto from the shoulder and hit anything reliably. Ditto with my FAL.   That was one of the complaints about the M14 as well.  

7.62x51 in full-auto needs a pintle or a bipod or one really beefy soldier.  

My $.02

Quoted: Until there is a substantial leap in technology we won't see a significant change in military weapons.

+1, the G11 had potential and did well in the ACR trials, but IIRC we concluded the ammo was expensive to produce and would stay that way.  Obviously, it also didn't provide the 100% increase in hit probability benchmark.

I've had my eye on these guys for a while.  IMO they have the best shot at realizing the SALVO concept.  With 10mm tubular bullets the operator would have a good chance of cutting multiple 10mm holes in armored or unarmored targets.  I know - Sci Fi for now...

Here's an '01 article on Metal Storm:  LINK.  "Because Metal Storm can be programmed to fire multiple rounds with a single trigger pull at an extremely high rate of fire, it is conceivable that a sniper could deliver multiple rounds, a double or triple tap, at long range, with no recoil between rounds."

Quoted: caseless ammo removes no heat along with the hot brass ala conventional ammo.

I thought they got around the cookoff issue by going to denatured hexogen propellant?  In The Black Rifle there's a quote from the ACR trials that says that, and the G11's requirement for very precisely manufactured bullets, meant the unit cost of the ammo was high and would stay that way.

At the risk of further thread drift, here is an excerpt from the ACR trials published on page 42 of The Black Rifle II

"HK along with [Dynamit Nobel AG] managed to conduct a cook-off test where 100 rounds were fired at an average cyclic rate of 85 shots per minute.  The 101st round did not cook-off when allowed to remain in the chamber for thirty  minutes.
***
The projectile is a gilding metal clad, steel penetrator, lead wire backed unit of 4.92mm diameter.  This projectile...is a high precision part that requires close tolerances in order to perform properly.  A major portion of the ballistic cycle calls for the bullet to enter the forcing cone, stop momentarily, and then proceed down the bore.  To do this reproducibly requires high projectile precision.  With such high tolerance parts required, the cost of manufacture is necessarily higher than for similar conventional projectiles.

The round body is composed of a true high-ignition-temperature propellant relative to standard nitrocellulose propellants.  The basic composition is a nitramine named 'Her Majesty's Explosive', HMX, with an energetic binder, a small percentage of fiber for strength and an induced porosity...

The H&K round id completely waterproof with or without coatings.  The round is extremely hard, but not friable; and is very hard to break.  The basic constituent of the propellant is a polymorph of HMX not normally considered to be an end product here in the United States...This is primarily a cost problem.  Other constituents of the H&K round are extremely hazardous to synthesize and alternative materials will not be easily of cheaply substituted.  The round is, and will continue to be, expensive to produce."

And people complain about the M16's operating tolerances and ammunition

+1  I also agree with coldblue.  A caseless automatic cannon for AFVs and aircraft or a caseless HMG might be a better platform for caseless technology.  When you're expending 50K of rifle ammo per enemy KIA, the unit cost of the ammo is pretty important.