While reading a long thread about 6.8 vs. 5.56 I noticed that the problems of today are rooted in the past. Then I thought about the British EM2 and its .280 cartridge and how it seemed ahead of its time. That if that had become the NATO standard then the 5.56 would probably not have. The more I read about the EM2 the more I saw its potential but how it was killed by politics and never talked about that much. How the answers to questions raised today seem to have been asked and answered over 50 years ago never fails to impresses me. Instead of trying to re-invent the wheel for inventions sake or prove some academic point, people just need to open a history book.  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM2

Naw, the British round was just as enemic as the 7.62X39.

Small Caliber High Velocity is the concept. 5.56X45 is the cartridge. M-16 is the rifle.

But the E.M.2 was      a true ASSAULT RIFLE, and as such definitly superior for infantry use than the M-14.

Quoted: Naw, the British round was just as enemic as the 7.62X39. Small Caliber High Velocity is the concept. 5.56X45 is the cartridge. M-16 is the rifle. But the E.M.2 was      a true ASSAULT RIFLE, and as such definitly superior for infantry use than the M-14.

Have you been reading Michael Yon?  The M16/M4 is not very effective in Iraq.  The .308 is.  The AK-47 is (when it doesn't have to penetrate body armor.)

The original concept of the 5.56 with a 55 grain fragmenting bullet at 3000+fps out of a 20" barrel with a marginal twist worked fairly well.  The 62 grain steel core non-fragmenting round at 2700fps out of a 16" barrel doesn't seem to.

The "anemic" 7.62 x 39 kills our guys dead at least as well, if not better than our 5.56 kills theirs.

I think the British .280 was on the right track.  The 6.8 seems to be as well.  But the .308 is better.

Quoted: Quoted: Naw, the British round was just as enemic as the 7.62X39. Small Caliber High Velocity is the concept. 5.56X45 is the cartridge. M-16 is the rifle. But the E.M.2 was      a true ASSAULT RIFLE, and as such definitly superior for infantry use than the M-14. Have you been reading Michael Yon?  The M16/M4 is not very effective in Iraq.  The .308 is.  The AK-47 is (when it doesn't have to penetrate body armor.) The original concept of the 5.56 with a 55 grain fragmenting bullet at 3000+fps out of a 20" barrel with a marginal twist worked fairly well.  The 62 grain steel core non-fragmenting round at 2700fps out of a 16" barrel doesn't seem to. The "anemic" 7.62 x 39 kills our guys dead at least as well, if not better than our 5.56 kills theirs. I think the British .280 was on the right track.  The 6.8 seems to be as well.  But the .308 is better.

How come (a) the Iraqis want M4s, and (B) the inventors of the AK decided it was better chambered in 5.45?

SCHV is it, period... There will be no relapse to big-bullet weapons as general issue...

What? Kalashnikov didnt want the AK chambered in 5.45, the Soviets did that  to copy us.

As for AK being good at killing, most of our soldiers die due to IDEs, not AKs.

Yeah, it was ahead of its time. But a really good weapon would have required more modern materials.

The UK 7mm was zippier than the 7.62X39. Muzzle velocity was around 2500 fps for a 139 grain bullet, vs. around 2300 fps for a AK round and a claimed 2700 fps/115 gr for 6.8 SPC. The actual production ammo has been found to be pretty anemic, chronoing at about 2500 fps from an 18" barrel.

The SCHV idea is interesting, but weapons only make sense in the social environment they're used in. The 5.56 from a 20" barrel was pretty good against coolies wearing black jammies. These days everyone is piling in and out of vehicles all day, so they want shorter barrels. But the 14.5" M4 barrel is borderline with 5.56.

Also we're not out shooting guys in rice paddies as often. There is more urban combat, which involves shooting at cars and the ubiquitous cinderblock buildings. For something like that a heavier bullet might be worthwhile.