Why the Army won't replace the 5.56 round

27 July 2003, 19:51

120mm

We found out today why the army will NOT be replacing the 5.56 round any time soon. For those of you who don't like the Stoner design, the M16 and M4 are gone with the wind within the next two years, to be replaced with an H&K designed 5.56 rifle, nominally called the XM8. It will come in carbine versions similar in weight and size to the M4. Only specific riflemen will be issued a long-barrelled version for longer range shooting. It will have an add-on grenade launcher, the fire control unit can be removed and used as a pistol (yeeeee haaaa!) and the barrel can be swapped out and bipod installed to make it a squad automatic weapon.

Within 10 years of fielding, the XM8 will be supplemented with a 25mm rifle firing air-burst, anti-tank and close-in flechette ammunition. The ammunition will feature an integrated chip, which will assist in guidance and proximity fusing and the current price is $22 a round. This weapon system will also have a "clip-on" XM8 fire control group under the barrel that can be fired like a short rifle or removed and fired as a pistol. This little beauty is currently called the XM29.

Next thing you know, we'll have posters submitting topics like "25 mm on feral cats" and "We all know the 25mm is too small to kill Blue whales, when is the army going to get a REAL rifle cartridge?"

We really need to see some footage of this on www.dogbegone.com

27 July 2003, 20:29

derf

The price of the XM8 ammo doesn't sond to bad,just about the same as Weatherby 300 rounds [Frown]

derf

28 July 2003, 05:07

<stans>

The Army is not likely to replace the 5.56 mm round because it has become a NATO standard. For that same reason, we are stuck with 9mm for side arms.

28 July 2003, 17:43

120mm

Which begs the issue: Which NATO? Currently, I believe that MOST of our NATO counterparts use 7.62X39 and 9mm Makarov as their main round of choice. Only one of our NATO ALLIES use 5.56 and 9mm. That is, unless you consider Germany and France to be our allies.

28 July 2003, 18:24

Grizzly Adams

Hello;
Today isn't April 1, is it?

29 July 2003, 01:37

BECoole

With all the complaints from Mechanized, I really don't see how a G36 would have any advantage over the M16. Now that FN has perfected the ambidextrous bullpup, I don't see them going with anything else.
That's my Keyboard Commando $.02. Time will tell.

29 July 2003, 05:43

<Sam>

The Army pretty much forced the 5.56 round on NATO. The Brit's were pushing for a .243 or .270 round to replace the .30. We were stuck with the 9MM when we the only one using the .45.

29 July 2003, 06:00

Rob1SG

The first rifle I carried in Nam as a grunt was an M14 and boy was I glad to get rid of it. The reason we went to the 5.56mm was to lighten the load of the soldier who normally carries 240 rounds of ammo plus all the other stuff we had to carry. I carried at least 21 loaded 20 rd. mags plus a couple of extra bandoleers,several granades, a block of C4,couple claymores,trip flares, and extra machinegun ammo.The average guy still carries over 100 Lbs of stuff even today.

29 July 2003, 07:30

Tony Williams

quote:
Originally posted by Sam:
The Army pretty much forced the 5.56 round on NATO. The Brit's were pushing for a .243 or .270 round to replace the .30. We were stuck with the 9MM when we the only one using the .45.

It was a bit more complicated than that. The Brits and sundry other NATO members wanted a short 7mm when the 7.62mm was introduced, but were overruled by the US Army.

Later, they worked out that a 6.25mm would be ideal, and manufactured and tested ammo in the late 1960s.

When the competition for a 7.62mm replacement came up, it was obvious that the 5.56mm would win because the US Army was already using it, so the Brits proposed a 5mm (notionally 4.85mm), cunningly based on the 5.56mm case so that when the US round won they could just rebarrel the guns...

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm

and: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

for more on this subject.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

29 July 2003, 15:26

120mm

Whoa! Good post, Tony! Hatcher's Notebook also has some good stuff on the development of the M16, and in fact, the development of the US military rifle up until the mid to late '60s.

Griz - No, it's not April 1st, it's just a brave, new world, where our staunchest NATO allies are Polish, Czech, Lithuanian, Romanian, etc.. We've quietly let them into the alliance in the last few years, and they are now the majority of allies we can count on. While the Brits are holding up their end, despite genuine hardship, the rest of the "traditional" NATO allies are not supporting us in ANY field of endeavor.

By the way, the new rifle will have an operator-installed "kit" where it can be changed into a 7.62 x 39mm or even a 5.45 x 39mm rifle by merely exchanging parts.

29 July 2003, 15:30

120mm

Also, don't forget the Navy's .236??? Lee straight pull caliber. In addition to the .276 Pedersen.

29 July 2003, 20:26

Tony Williams

quote:
Originally posted by 120mm:
Also, don't forget the Navy's .236??? Lee straight pull caliber. In addition to the .276 Pedersen.

Ackley's books contain some interesting info about the interwar competition which (temporarily) led to the selection of the .276 Pedersen. Three calibres were subjected to intensive trials, including shooting at animal carcasses; a .25, the .276 and the .30-06.

The people who tested the weapons recommended the .25. The Caliber Board thought that was going too far and chose the .276. The Army high command thought that anything smaller than .30 was unacceptable, so the .30-06 remained.

So it goes...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

30 July 2003, 09:20

Erik Jensen

Well, as a dane I fell that I have to post a reply - just to let you guys know that the US has another european support in the small country Denmark. We actually supports the US active in both Afganistan and Iraq - with naval vessels, F16 and special forces.... Not much compared to the amount of hardware - but compared to the size of Denmark I think we can be proud of it.

30 July 2003, 01:28

Cold Bore

Erik-

Thanks for your (and your country's) support!

You are right, in relation to the size of your country, you guys are doing allright, and can be proud!

Thanks again!

30 July 2003, 02:19

Orion 1

quote:
Originally posted by Tony Williams:

quote:
Originally posted by 120mm:
Also, don't forget the Navy's .236??? Lee straight pull caliber. In addition to the .276 Pedersen.
Ackley's books contain some interesting info about the interwar competition which (temporarily) led to the selection of the .276 Pedersen. Three calibres were subjected to intensive trials, including shooting at animal carcasses; a .25, the .276 and the .30-06.

The people who tested the weapons recommended the .25. The Caliber Board thought that was going too far and chose the .276. The Army high command thought that anything smaller than .30 was unacceptable, so the .30-06 remained.

So it goes...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

There were more pragmatic reasons for the continuance of the 30-06 as the US service rifle cartridge than just a provincial Army's view that nothing else could kill a man effectively.

At the time of the new cartridge trials, the United States was in the middle of a deep economic depression. On top of that, there were huge amounts of 30-06 ammunition left over from WW 1 in the nation's armories. It would have been the height of fiscal irresponsibility to throw them away for a new cartridge when the nation's eceonomy was in the shitter and our military budget was at a bare bones level.

30 July 2003, 02:20

Orion 1

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Jensen:
Well, as a dane I fell that I have to post a reply - just to let you guys know that the US has another european support in the small country Denmark. We actually supports the US active in both Afganistan and Iraq - with naval vessels, F16 and special forces.... Not much compared to the amount of hardware - but compared to the size of Denmark I think we can be proud of it.

And that support will be remembered for a long time. Thanks.

30 July 2003, 13:29

Jay Gorski

Hi,I'm actually Jays son but isn't the Xm8 or whatever also called the OICW?I saw it in a video game and liked it so I looked it up.They said It would be replacing what we got now for our infantry.I also whent to the Hechler & Koch homepage and I found out they made the OICW.Is this true?
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

30 July 2003, 16:48

120mm

Hey Tyler. You're a pretty good poster. Your questions and comments are really well thought out and organized. Your dad should give you your own login.

I don't know anything about the OICW, but I guarantee you I will go to their webpage and find out all I can, and maybe use some of my army connections as well and get back to all of you with what I learn.

As far as the Danes are concerned, I am well and truly shamed to say I overlooked them entirely. Frankly, they don't get the press they deserve. That was the problem with the "old" NATO imho. Now that the "new" NATO is coming about, you have all sorts of folks saying the smaller countries are getting too much emphasis. The people that say that are usually disappointed that NATO won, imho.

I was only in Denmark once, but it was memorable. I went through there coming back from the Soviet Union in 1985. What a contrast! To this day, I have a soft spot in my heart for Denmark and Finland, the first western countries I saw after being in the USSR for a while. I have no doubt in my mind of the superiority of freedom/capitalism to the alternative.

30 July 2003, 17:26

120mm

Hey, Tyler, I just did some research on the OICW, and have some info. The OICW was a test-bed for the development of the M-29 infantry weapon system. The M-29 has the all the features of the OICW, but instead of weighing 24 pounds, it is targeted at 12 pounds. Also, it fires a 25mm, instead of the 20mm round. Currently, the XM-29 weighs 14 pounds, and will probably "make weight" in time for 2012 fielding.

Now, before we get the "ultralight rifle" crowd all riled up, remember that the M29 consists of a 5.5 pound M8 compact machine pistol firing 5.56, as well as a 25mm launcher, firing a "smart" round, tied to a really sophisticated targeting system, that isn't your old varmint scope. If you get in the tactical situation where you can't carry all the gear, you can opt for "just" carrying the M8, with a clip-on butt-stock. Of course, you could always dispense with the M8 and carry the 25mm all by it's lonesome. IF you don't feel you'll be "under-gunned."

I am not familiar with the reliability, accuracy or durability of the H&K G36 rifle.

[ 07-30-2003, 12:03: Message edited by: 120mm ]

31 July 2003, 03:13

308winchester

Also there is a Nato country up here in the north called Norway.

We use AG3 in 7.62x51Nato and 9mm parrabellum. We follow the Nato standards. There is plans to change it, we will sertainly follow the US and most of Nato.

We had and still have spesial forces, F-16s, etc in Afganistan.

In Iraq we didn't do much good, but finaly we have sends some mine clearers and simulare personel to take some dirty jobs of american and britsh hands.

Johan

31 July 2003, 05:18

Jay Gorski

I again looked up the OICW and it said that it fires 20 mm grenades that are programed at the end of the barrel of the grenade launcher and when they get the programed distance away from the target they explode making thousands of peices of shrapnel hit everything in that direction.I learned about the grenades on a show called "Future Fighting Machines" on tech t.v.Yeah when I first reserched The OICW it said it was around 14 lbs.Personally I would rather carry a MP-5 or a M-4.In fact i'm saving money or a Colt M-4.Oh, I also wanted to know if anyone knows if Colt has a Youth shooters discount.Hope I didnt write too much.
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

31 July 2003, 05:30

Jay Gorski

Sorry I meant 25 mm rounds.Everything else I said is true about the round.
Thanks,Tyler Gorski

31 July 2003, 17:56

Tony Williams

quote:
Originally posted by Jay Gorski:
I again looked up the OICW and it said that it fires 20 mm grenades that are programed at the end of the barrel of the grenade launcher and when they get the programed distance away from the target they explode making thousands of peices of shrapnel hit everything in that direction.

That was the original plan, but it was recently changed to 25mm calibre in order to use the same projectiles as the OCSW (albeit fired at a lower velocity). The emphasis now seems to be on separating the 25mm and 5.56mm elements to make two different weapons, presumably because of weight problems.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

01 August 2003, 01:26

Pete E

Is the M8 designed to fire standard currant issue 5.56mm? Surely the performace is going to end up lousy beyond 100m if it has such a short barrel?

01 August 2003, 02:40

quote:
Originally posted by 120mm:
It will come in carbine versions similar in weight and size to the M4. Only specific riflemen will be issued a long-barrelled version for longer range shooting....

Hmmm...

Pete is right. A short barrel is not a good idea for such a velocity dependent caliber. Someone really needs to explain the wound ballistics of the 5.56 round to the Army.

01 August 2003, 03:39

Crazy Cledus

Personally, I feel that the Gov't ought redesign a weapon around the 7.62 NATO round, it far more capable of penetrating armor, (vehicular), and it has more "ass" behind it than the 5.56mm has. I mean I'm not trying to belittle the M-16 or its AR variant both are useful, but I feel as if the Gov't would be better off with the 7.62 NATO round and a more suitable "modern" weapon to shoot it from. Heck, why not even try a weapon with the "old" 7.62 round, the .30-06, hell, its proven, too. [Razz]

Even the AK-47 has more "punch" than the 5.56mm, the AK round is somewhat similar in ballistics to the ol' .30-30!

[ 07-31-2003, 18:41: Message edited by: Crazy Cledus ]

01 August 2003, 03:54

308winchester

The 7.62Nato is too big, heavy and and has to much recoil for usefull full auto burst.

It was a bad compromise after the ww2. It is to close to the old 30-06. Accurate, long range shooting is not a major factor in modern war.

The 7.62x39 or maybe the old 7.92Kurtz. A 7mm or 6.5mm version of the kurtz wouldn't be all that bad. the 5.56 isn't bad, but it might be a tad on the light side.

A sligtly bigger round but not all the way to 7.62Nato. Full auto AG3, M-14 or FAL all point to th sky after a good burst if you don't have expert, expensive, and long training.

But has a hunting round, sniper and mashinegun round the 7.62 shines!

Johan

01 August 2003, 04:27

<Eric>

Personally, I'm quite satisfied with the 5.56 round. It kills bad guys quite well, and that is the purpose of a soldiers weapon, to kill bad guys.

You need a vehicle fired on? Well then Mr. Helper, how about laying down fire with that M203, or the M240 B, 7.62 machine gun? The M240 B is so far superior to the M60 that I can't find the words.

Something bigger? Well how about that there MK19 40mm grenade launching machine gun with HEDP rounds? Or maybe the M@ .50 caliber? Both of them fine can openers.

Even bigger? For tanks? Well then, the M220 TOW is the answer! And, it works out to 3750 meters! Whoa! we want something with more "coverage!" Well then the MLRS and the M109 Paladine are the answer!

What we have here is an argument, uh, conversation regarding the ability of the 5.56 versus the 7.62 in the ability to take out vehicles or bunkers. Well, you know, bunkers stop 7.62 also. That's why infantry squads have AT4 rockets. That's why there are 11H M220 TOW units. THat's why there is tank support.

The average load for a soldier in this last action was 120 pounds. The average load. That's basic load, grenades, water, rations, extra ammo, mines, and everything else you can hang on some poor sap. And some people think we need bigger bullets. Or better yet, lets give the poor sap a weapon that's even heavier that the "HOG!" With a grenade launcher, a computer and other Flash Gordon stuff! Yea, that's the ticket! Give him more weight to pack!

The 5.56 kills people, thats its job. All the other stuff is to back up the poor sap on the ground and insure that he can do his job and come home alive.

And too, there is the issue that there is not, anywhere, a rifle fielded that is the absolute best for every theatre of operation that can exist. I believe that weapons should be tailored to the specific situation.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Regards,

Eric

19Delta & 11Bravo qualified.

01 August 2003, 04:46

eshell

quote:
Originally posted by 308winchester:
The 7.62Nato is too big, heavy and and has to much recoil for usefull full auto burst. . .

I'd agree, as far as shoulder-fired goes. I used to be very jealous, but after sitting next to a fellow with an M14E2 at a recent MG shoot, I felt just fine with my M1A semi. Even being a sort of big guy, by the time he had three or four rounds downrange, his muzzle was nowhere near the target anymore.

01 August 2003, 05:02

Jay Gorski

Maybe the AK is more reliable in combat.Yeah it has a bigger round but the 5.56 seems to work anyways.It can get through body armor, it's cheap and its more accurate than an AK.Only thing is the AK is the only rifle EVER to pass the dust test.They fill a room with blowing dust everywhere and a guy with a suit on goes in and shoots.The AK did it flawlessly.Still the M-4 is the best in my opinion.
Thanks, Tyler Gorski.

01 August 2003, 09:24

Edmond

quote:
Originally posted by 120mm:
Which begs the issue: Which NATO? Currently, I believe that MOST of our NATO counterparts use 7.62X39 and 9mm Makarov as their main round of choice. Only one of our NATO ALLIES use 5.56 and 9mm. That is, unless you consider Germany and France to be our allies.

Spain, Portugal,Italy and a bunch of others from eastern Europe who are switching or just switched to 5.56 will be happy to know they are no allies.
thx for this brilliant demonstration of in depth knowledges of other countries equipment....

01 August 2003, 09:30

Jay Gorski

Hey I'm mostly German and i do consider Germany,France and Italy and all them our allies.Not just Britain.Why wouldn't you consider them our allies?I consider all of NATo our allies.Jeez.
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

01 August 2003, 17:08

120mm

The reason we don't consider France and Germany our allies, is that they are noone's allies. France withdrew from NATO, for all practical purposes, in 1961, Edmond. But still, they want to tell NATO what to do. The term "Gallic pride" fits, entirely. I've not seen any of our new (and incredibly enthusiastic) eastern european allies carrying 5.56 yet, and I've been on some joint training stuff with them. Have you? Frankly, France, Germany and Russia have been too busy undermining America by creating "deals" with our enemies.

Frankly, when France made the "deal with the devil" in the '60s to harbor terrorists in return for not being attacked, they lost what little respect I ever had for them. Of course, their behavior before during AND after WWII was exemplary as well. "Finding" one or two terrorists after 9/11 doesn't quite make up for it.

Should I go on? Do you REALLY think France is our ally? I have slightly more respect for the Germans, but I've lived among them long enough to wear most of it away. Hypocrisy 'R' S.

01 August 2003, 17:13

120mm

And, Edmond, nice try to attempt to make it look as if I were attacking our true, Eastern European friends. And Italy, HA! Some ally. They'll honor any part of the treaty we pay them to. And only that part. Someone needs to tell them that they are a conquered country and are DAMN LUCKY the US looked the other way. Spain, Portugal, don't know much about their contribution. With their economy, they really can't afford the new, ambiguous NATO alliance. I did, however, get a good feeling about Greenland and Iceland, though....

01 August 2003, 17:43

Duckear

quote:
Originally posted by Jay Gorski:
.In fact i'm saving money or a Colt M-4.Oh, I also wanted to know if anyone knows if Colt has a Youth shooters discount......
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

Tyler, go here for a good deal on a quality AR. Plus, it will get you in with likeminded shooters.

http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Programs/AR15.htm

No,they're not M4's but hopefully the silly AWB will sunset and you will be able to afford an "M4gery" quicker!!!

02 August 2003, 02:40

BECoole

quote:
Originally posted by 120mm:
I've not seen any of our new (and incredibly enthusiastic) eastern european allies carrying 5.56 yet.

They still have lots of 7.62x39 and 5.45x39 left to burn up, but here's some of Poland's newer arms:
http://hem.passagen.se/dadkri/Onyks.htm
and Czechoslovakia's
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/galleryfiles/2100/2109.htm
Give them a few years to burn up the old stock, then they will move to the 5.56.

02 August 2003, 11:03

Jay Gorski

I've told my dad this many times...I am saving up for a Colt.Not RR,not Armalite and definitely not Les Baer.I want a nice M4.So anywasy does anyone know if Colt has a youth shooters discount.
Thanks,Tyler Gorski.

03 August 2003, 09:23

Crazy Cledus

O.K., Maybe I'm just too ol' fashioned, But who said the 7.62 NATO had to be full auto? It would have its purpose in a semi-auto mode, but I guess I'm just a former grunt that has too much firepower on his mind

04 August 2003, 00:04

308winchester

I think full auto is here to stay in modern war.

The 308 shines in MG's. Our german MG3 is great, has proven to be a good weapon the last 50 years.
But is usefull to have the same ammo for your MG as your rifles. Makes things easier in the field.

Think about Japan in ww2, where every branch of the millitary chose their own gun and ammo, and often more than one ammo type!

3-4 differnt rifles with differnt ammo that did the same job and the same with pistols, sniperrifles, submachine guns and MGs. Must have made a terrible mess.

Johan

25 October 2007, 14:41

Edmond

quote:
Originally posted by 308winchester:
Also there is a Nato country up here in the north called Norway. We use AG3 in 7.62x51Nato and 9mm parrabellum. We follow the Nato standards. There is plans to change it, we will sertainly follow the US and most of Nato. We had and still have spesial forces, F-16s, etc in Afganistan. In Iraq we didn't do much good, but finaly we have sends some mine clearers and simulare personel to take some dirty jobs of american and britsh hands. Johan

Looks like changing your regular small arms is underway, I recently laid my hands on M16/M4s with Norway's armed forces crest engraved on them.