To answer the original question, 5.56X45 Mark 262 Mod 1 is what is working best in combat.

That cartridge was developed by Black Hills Ammunition and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Indiana for Naval Special Warfare Units, and now its use has spead throughtout SOCOM units, and even some non-SOCOM units. The load was developed and type classified by the Navy, hence the Mark designation instead of the M designation.

The load was initially made with a Nosler 77 grain Custom Competition Open Tip Match boat tailed bullet (Mod 0), and Mod 1 uses a cannelured 77 grain Sierra Match King OTM bullet.

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:
To answer the original question, 5.56X45 Mark 262 Mod 1 is what is working best in combat.

That cartridge was developed by Black Hills Ammunition and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Indiana for Naval Special Warfare Units, and now its use has spead throughtout SOCOM units, and even some non-SOCOM units. The load was developed and type classified by the Navy, hence the Mark designation instead of the M designation.

The load was initially made with a Nosler 77 grain Custom Competition Open Tip Match boat tailed bullet (Mod 0), and Mod 1 uses a cannelured 77 grain Sierra Match King OTM bullet.

Which is exactly what I said and was taken to task over by “that person.â€

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:
To answer the original question, 5.56X45 Mark 262 Mod 1 is what is working best in combat.

That cartridge was developed by Black Hills Ammunition and the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Indiana for Naval Special Warfare Units, and now its use has spead throughtout SOCOM units, and even some non-SOCOM units. The load was developed and type classified by the Navy, hence the Mark designation instead of the M designation.

The load was initially made with a Nosler 77 grain Custom Competition Open Tip Match boat tailed bullet (Mod 0), and Mod 1 uses a cannelured 77 grain Sierra Match King OTM bullet.

Which is exactly what I said and was taken to task over by “that person.â€

I just added some specifics.

Ihave read in Cooer commentaries only bad comments and reports on the 5.56 ,some of the through a marine captain Bob Young i believe that the 6.8 or the 7.62 are bteer elections .Juan

6.8 is a flash in the pan. It will never be adopted or have widespread commercial success.

Just a a fad cartridge, hyped by Delta/SEAL/SOCOM wannabes.

quote:

Originally posted by juanpozzi:
Ihave read in Cooer commentaries only bad comments and reports on the 5.56 ,

That old fart can't STFU fast enough. His ramblings stopped being relevant years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:

That old fart can't STFU fast enough. His ramblings stopped being relevant years ago.

I enjoy reading Cooper's commentaries and still find an relevant point in every issue.

I'm no expert, but what would be wrong with the .243 Win as a replacement? More or less double the bullet weight with superior ballistics.

quote:

Originally posted by sad_cal_native:
I'm no expert, but what would be wrong with the .243 Win as a replacement?

Cartridge does not fit in an AR15.

Thanks HP,

So is the magazine the problem then? Is the idea to keep the receiver the same, find something that fits it and change the barrel?

They did that, it's called the 6.8 SPC. But as somebody once said it will be a flash in the pan, limited to Spec Ops and other "elite" units. This is mainly due to the fact that our light machineguns, the M249, use the same round as our rifles.

If the military was really interested in replacing the 5.56 they should look no further than the 6x45; a standard 5.56 NATO necked up to .244. In many nations where owning a military chambered rifle is illegal this is a very popular round. Couple that with the fact that such a conversion requires only a barrel and sight change on the M16 series and the M249 and you have a winner in terms of logisitical needs, money invested, and gaining some bullet weight without sacrificing low recoil or range.


Good Luck,
Bob

And what does the 6x45 do better than the 5.56x45, Gunny Bob (TANSTAAFL)?

Sorry, for the sake of brevity in my last post I edited more than I intended. I meant to say "If the military was really interested in replacing the 5.56 in the current platforms..."

In the long run not enough to warrant the change... At least not in a military perspective. But the conversation always interests me in that we all seem to sit here and deride the 5.56 and the M16 all while wanting to change this and that yet not understanding the requirements of what seem to be some pretty minor changes.

Example... Change all M16/M4s to 6.8 SPC. Sounds good, but now you've hosed the SAW. The 6.8 will feed out of unmodified 5.56 mags, but not as reliably as modified ones, but the SAW does feed from unmodified mags, and it is 5.56. If the SAW and the M16 are to continue to be able to share mags and rounds after the change the SAW has to be changed, now you have to change the barrel, sights, feed pawls, etc... You get the idea.

At the time the military choses to replace the M16 and the M249 they will most likely change the chambering. To what? I don't know, maybe the 6.8, maybe not. If history is any guide it will be a smaller, lighter, faster moving bullet rather than the other way around. Until then our soldiers will use what is issued.

To answer the original question that started the thread.... Whatever you have in your rifle when you need to use it. That is what 5.56 ammo is working well in Iraq.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by sad_cal_native:
Thanks HP,

So is the magazine the problem then? Is the idea to keep the receiver the same, find something that fits it and change the barrel?

The problem is not the magazine. The whole rifle needs to be bigger to accomodate the 308 Winchester case. Hence the existance of the AR10 and Knight's SR25.

The 308 based cartridges are simply too much recoil to be controllable in FA (yes, even the 243), and anyone who argues otherwise has never fired an automatic rifle.

The ideal solution is the Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel, which is based on a 22 PPC case with the shoulder moved fwd a few thou and necked up to 6.5 mm.

Unfortunately, the logistics of a caliber changeover will probably prevent this from happening.

I think the best we can do is improve the terminal ballistics of the 5.56 with better bullet designs in the 70 to 77 grain range. We are almost there with Mark 262 Mod 1.

quote:

Originally posted by TANSTAAFL:If the military was really interested in replacing the 5.56 they should look no further than the 6x45; a standard 5.56 NATO necked up to .244.

such a conversion requires only a barrel and sight change on the M16 series and the M249 and you have a winner in terms of logisitical needs, money invested, and gaining some bullet weight without sacrificing low recoil or range.


Good Luck,
Bob

Bob, I would submit that adopting Mark 262 Mod 1 as is, or developing a new .224" bullet in the 75 grain range with similar fragmentation characteristics to the 75 and 77 grain OTM bullets out there would achieve about 95% of the improvement of going to a 6X45 without any of the firearm modification expenses.

Using the available better ammo is far more cost effective than converting the millions of M16’s already in service. The 75 and 77 grain ammo is working just fine in actual use according to the troops on the ground.

You will see an entirely new rifle/ammo system before you will see any large scale conversion of the M16 to fire a new round. Just my opinion.

The logistical nightmare of trying to phase in new rifles during a time of war would be a disaster for the troops on the ground. I was around when the Marine Corps switched from the M14 to the M16 in 1967 and it was a cluster-f**k for months and people died needlessly in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by TANSTAAFL:If the military was really interested in replacing the 5.56 they should look no further than the 6x45; a standard 5.56 NATO necked up to .244.

such a conversion requires only a barrel and sight change on the M16 series and the M249 and you have a winner in terms of logisitical needs, money invested, and gaining some bullet weight without sacrificing low recoil or range.


Good Luck,
Bob

Bob, I would submit that adopting Mark 262 Mod 1 as is, or developing a new .224" bullet in the 75 grain range with similar fragmentation characteristics to the 75 and 77 grain OTM bullets out there would achieve about 95% of the improvement of going to a 6X45 without any of the firearm modification expenses.

All is very true, but you most likely won't see a change to the Mark 262 for a couple of reasons:

1) The round fragments, or as some have said has "increased terminal performance in soft targets". It may be perfectly legal under the Hague Conventions in Iraq but I doubt you are going to see a fragmenting round as a general issue item for those outside the Spec Ops community.

2) The incresed performance in soft targets comes at the expense of performance against any form of protection, even soft skinned vehicles like automobiles provide good protection against the Mark 262 as compared to even the M855.

So we are back to finding a round that does everything well, nothing too poorly, and most likely nothing perfectly. Perhaps we could look at simply redesigning the M855 to a 75 or so grain round. I'm sure the slide-rule guys could come up with a combination of bullet/powder that would not even require changing the sights or myriad of optics that have ballistic marks tailored to the M855.

Again, even a simple change like moving to the M262 has some pretty big effects that have not been considered.

Good Luck,
Bob

It’s going to be awhile before a truly “all-purpose-any-target†small arms round hits the scene, so in the mean time the military is going to have to get along with what works best for the most frequently encountered targets, which for the foreseeable future seems to be soft skinned human beings on foot or in unarmored civilian vehicles, wearing unarmored civilian clothing, and carrying an AK of some kind.

Whatever that round ends up being my bet is that it will continue to be a 5.56mm caliber that will function in the unaltered M16 family of rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick 0311:
It’s going to be awhile before a truly “all-purpose-any-target†small arms round hits the scene, so in the mean time the military is going to have to get along with what works best for the most frequently encountered targets, which for the foreseeable future seems to be soft skinned human beings on foot or in unarmored civilian vehicles, wearing unarmored civilian clothing, and carrying an AK of some kind.

Whatever that round ends up being my bet is that it will continue to be a 5.56mm caliber that will function in the unaltered M16 family of rifles.

Everybody's experience in Iraq seems to be very different, even your son's experience sounds different from mine and we were within 10 miles of each other. My experience is that penetration was significantly more important than terminal ballistics in soft tissue. We simply didn't have a lot of gunfights with insurgents that failed to use cover. The few times anybody in our Bn had that opportunity it was our snipers and they had M40's and SASR's.

In the end I would rather have a decent general purpose round than try to remember what mag had what special purpose ammo in it. And we most likely have that in the M855. Could we improve, yes, would it be worth it, most likely not. But the conversation is fun anyway.

BTW Rick0311, PM sent.

Bob

quote:

Originally posted by TANSTAAFL:

Everybody's experience in Iraq seems to be very different, even your son's experience sounds different from mine and we were within 10 miles of each other. My experience is that penetration was significantly more important than terminal ballistics in soft tissue. We simply didn't have a lot of gunfights with insurgents that failed to use cover. The few times anybody in our Bn had that opportunity it was our snipers and they had M40's and SASR's.

In the end I would rather have a decent general purpose round than try to remember what mag had what special purpose ammo in it. And we most likely have that in the M855. Could we improve, yes, would it be worth it, most likely not. But the conversation is fun anyway.

BTW Rick0311, PM sent.

Bob

Bob,

I doubt that we will ever go back to fighting an enemy that comes marching across open fields beating drums and waving flags while we take aim and shoot them one by one.

All the complaints I have personally heard and read concerning M855 ammo had to do with targets caught in the open that did not go down when shot with it.

If a bad guy is using a vehicle or a wall as cover there really isn’t any 5.56mm ammo that will reliable punch through either of those and still have enough bullet and energy to do much damage. I’m talking about a guy ducking behind a vehicle where the bullet would have to go through the entire length or width to get to him. Yes, M855 (as well as most small arms ammo) will punch through window glass and at least one side of cars “most of the time.†Most small arms ammo will also go through most household doors and inside walls fairly easily. 9mm ammo is notorious for zipping through multiple inside walls of homes and apartments...ask the LAPD who has been sued several times over that.

For most grunts, they want something that they can be reasonably assured will put someone down when hit at ranges from the muzzle out to about 300 yards or so. Again, from what I have been told by people serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the heavier 75 to 77 grain 5.56mm ammo seems to be the best in that particular caliber at putting bad guys down with one good body hit at reasonable ranges.

Well Rick, count me among your exceptions. In my patrols, mainly foot-mobile but also on open top hummers, I was a lot more concerned with being able to penetrate into and effect the driver/passenger of a VBIED or drive by. There really wasn't much of an opportunity to hit bad guys running in the open, and even if there was I would keep shooting until he went down or I couldn't shoot any more, I'm not a sniper, I'm a grunt.

I never saw a single round of any of this ammo, so of the vehicles we did shoot I can't tell you if it would have worked as well as M855, but from what I've read it's pretty marginal even getting into a car body through the door.

Again, other people's milage may vary.

Bob

quote:

I never saw a single round of any of this ammo, so of the vehicles we did shoot I can't tell you if it would have worked as well as M855, but from what I've read it's pretty marginal even getting into a car body through the door.

You DO understand, Bob!

quote:

Originally posted by TANSTAAFL:
[you most likely won't see a change to the Mark 262 for a couple of reasons:

1) The round fragments, or as some have said has "increased terminal performance in soft targets". It may be perfectly legal under the Hague Conventions in Iraq but I doubt you are going to see a fragmenting round as a general issue item for those outside the Spec Ops community.

2) The incresed performance in soft targets comes at the expense of performance against any form of protection, even soft skinned vehicles like automobiles provide good protection against the Mark 262 as compared to even the M855.

Point 1) M193 (the original M16 ball ammo) fragments impressively, and it is just plain ol' ball with an exposed base and closed tip.

Point 2) True that Mk 262 penetrates less than M855. Which is why the ideal solution, as I see it, is to replace the SS 109 bullet with a new purpose-made, 75 to 77 grain bullet that has the ballistics of the OTM rounds, the fragmentation of M193, and still penetrates well.

In fact, the transverse reinforcement of the Nosler Partition, Swift A-Frame, or Combined Technologies Fail Safe bullets could be applied to a new FMJ design that still has a frangible nose cone. The bulkhead would preserve the rear core to provide enhanced penetration without sacrificing fragmentation and without the lack of concentricity issues of M855's steel penetrator.

I'm sure one of our many excellent bullet makers can figure it out and make it work.

quote:

Originally posted by TANSTAAFL:
Well Rick, count me among your exceptions. In my patrols, mainly foot-mobile but also on open top hummers, I was a lot more concerned with being able to penetrate into and effect the driver/passenger of a VBIED or drive by. There really wasn't much of an opportunity to hit bad guys running in the open, and even if there was I would keep shooting until he went down or I couldn't shoot any more, I'm not a sniper, I'm a grunt.

I never saw a single round of any of this ammo, so of the vehicles we did shoot I can't tell you if it would have worked as well as M855, but from what I've read it's pretty marginal even getting into a car body through the door.

Again, other people's milage may vary.

Bob

Bob,

My son’s outfit got a bunch of the heavier bulleted rounds about seven months into their tour and they had numerous occasions to light up vehicles with it and never had a problem getting the rounds to get inside vehicles and take care of the problem behind the wheel.

Since they had both types of ammunition they got the chance to do side by side comparisons...which is normally a bit more credible than stories from some guy who heard another guy telling a friend about something he heard from his buddy in another outfit.

I believe the Corps is issuing the heavier stuff to all combat arms units in country.

There is no reason with todays technology that a 5.56mm round that will reliably penetrate car bodies and also put a bad guy on foot down for the count can’t be produced and supplied to our troops. You guys deserve nothing less.

Info from the Navy on the Mark 262 ammo being used by some of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the stuff that my son’s outfit got.

Ammunition: The SPR is not used to fire standard issue M855 ball or M856 Tracer (and even less so 1:12" M193 ball). Due to the limits in performance and poor accuracy of the 61.5 grain (4 g) M855 ball (standard NATO green-tip .223), the Mark 262 Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP) round was developed as more accurate 5.56 x 45 mm round. It is utilized in the SPR. The bullet utilized in this cartridge is the Sierra MatchKing 77 grain (5 g) Hollow Point Boat Tail (HPBT) (Nosler also was under contract to make a similar bullet). The cartridge is designated the Mark 262 MOD 1.

HP,
I understand the original German 7.62x51 ammo did the same thing but eventually was pulled from production.

Rick,
That's good to hear, reports from the field, both positive and negative, will eventually mean positive change. Hopefully we can get enough comparisons to increase the overall effectiveness of the 5.56. In general our Bn was very satisfied with what we were issued, but as usual there were those who wanted the newest, hottest thing. I'm sure that discussion has happened in every war. I was once called a dinosaur because I told my CO I thought the XM-8 project was the wrong way to go (much longer conversation, but you get the idea, opposed to change...).

DaMan,
I really don't think you understand.... I'm all for changing the 5.56, either with replacing it altoghether or at least improving the projectile. But only if it is a real and across the board improvment (I would have tested the shit out of that ammo before I took one step out of the FOB with it). Revamping things that work just fine simply to placate those who think there is a need is counterproductive, but stagnation of development because we are "in the middle of a war" is poor management.

All that being said if the 77gr ammo is not putting lives at risk by lack of penetration and works better in soft tissue I'm all for it. If it shows some shortcomings at least its use has shown that we can, and should, do better than the M855. Eventually we will end up with the best available without wasting taxpayer money on "what-if's". But as I and others have said; we are VERY unlikely to see a change in chambering until there is a change of weapons.

Bob

Bob, Mk 262 is Land Warfare legal, cleared by DoD JAG, so it's not just an "anti-terrorist" round.

My understanding of the Hague Accords is that it forbids expaning and hollow point ammo designed to expand. Mk 262, like M193, is neither.

As for the German 7.62X51 getting pulled, I don't know the exact reason why, but I bet it had to do with the adoption of the G36.

Bob,

I believe you are going to see far more use of M14’s and/or AR 10’s in the near future. At the least I bet you will see one such .30 caliber rifle per squad. I believe you are also going to see a new souped up round for the 203 designed specifically for taking out vehicles rather than just throwing shrapnel around.

The ammunition technology is out there and the basic weapons platforms we have are damned good.

The first demo I watched for the XM8 left me with one thought...who’s gonna haul all the conversion packages around? And what’s gonna happen when you need part “A†and some dink left it behind? A “Swiss-Army†rifle sounds good on paper, but having been a Grunt in a war I just don’t think the concept is at all practical.

The USA is light years ahead of anyone when it comes to the “science“ of war...and unfortunately we are too often light years behind in the “art†of war.

Although this does not cover the exact round we are discussing this is good information, but dry...

http://bajaarizona.org/fklr/fklr.html

The one thing we tend to forget about the Hague Conventions is that we are only TRULY bound by those line items we sign on to.

Bob

Bob,

it has been determined for quite some time that Match-King type hollow tipped bullets are not the same thing as hollow points designed to expand on impact.

The hollow tip is actually nothing more than something left there by the process that swages the jacket to the lead core, and it was never intended to function as a true hollow point.

Guys,
Don't take my continued posting as saying I disagree with the round, or that I believe it is somehow illegal, far from it. I posted the link to show the naysayers, especially those who may just be reading the posts and not participating, that the Mark 262 ammo performs to standard with most of the ammunition currently in use in the world (although that ammo is not specifically mentioned the article does talk about it's 7.62 older brother). I found the information there rather interesting.

Rick, the fact that your son says it will still get into a car and stop a VBIED gives me a warm fuzzy. Although such attacks are less common than many would like us to believe when they are successful they are catastrophic. And I just can't get the images and smells of our first such attack out of my head. Thank God the Marine on post was able to force a detonation away from the post.

In the long run I'm pretty jaded. I openly complained to my CO and Bn Cmdr that many of the things we were doing in Iraq were not designed to win the conflict, but simply to avoid losing it. I will not argue with the success of our Bn, by the time we left 10% of the population of Abu Ghraib came from our Bn, but there really was a lot more we could have done if Higher HQ had let us.

Bob

Bob,

I see you’ve joined the ranks of every Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine that has ever been in combat!

I heard the exact same complaints from my son every time I spoke with him on the phone, my folks heard the same dialog from me every time I wrote home from Vietnam, and my mom has told me that my dad said the same things when he wrote her during WWII and Korea.

Some things NEVER change.

quote:

I really don't think you understand.... I'm all for changing the 5.56, either with replacing it altoghether or at least improving the projectile.

Oh, I understand that, TANSTAAFL. But you suggested the 6mmx45.

quote:

they should look no further than the 6x45; a standard 5.56 NATO necked up to .244.

What advantages did you think that chambering would bring?

A buddy of mine mentioned that the Delta guys started using a ballistic tip about the same time the Navy went to the MK262. He thought it was a 75gr Hornady. Any of yall know about that? Delta is concidered anti-terroism so they can use it. Same guy got his hands on some and says it was noticiably better/excellent on soft targets.

Is there any problems stabilizing the 70 or 75gr. bullets with the standard rifling twist?

What are you reffering to as "standard". 1:7-1:8 no problem at all, 1:9 probably no problem inside 600 yards, 1:10 doubtful but possible, 1:12 no way.

DaMan,
I'll caveat my answer by saying that we will probably not see a change in chambering until we see a change of issued weapons, and most likely that won't be for another 10+ years. But to really discuss why the 5.56 needs to eventually be replaced, and by what, we need to look at what the issues are and why the current crop of candidates fail to fullfil those requirements:

1) In aimed rifle fire only hits count.
2) Even during WWII it was recognized that the average battle range was 200m or less for soldiers to engage with personal weapons.
3) Maneuver Warfare has decreased the role of the individual soldier and increased the role of supporting weapons/arms.

I'm a huge fan of the .308 (7.62x51) for hunting and as a MMG/Sniper round. But the day of the full-power batle cartridge has ended. With increased overlap of weapons; rifles, LMG's, MMG's, HMG's, etc., the need to truly reach out and touch a point target at 500+m is minimal. What situations are left can easily be handled by snipers and Designated Marksmen using 7.62x51 rifles or HB versions of the issued rifle. Anybody who has shot a 18-22 lb MMG knows that controlling the 7.62 on full auto isn't as easy as it looks. So, unfortunately the 7.62x51 should not be the next assault rifle cartridge for the US Military.

On the other end of the spectrum we have the current 5.56x45. It's everything the 7.62.x51 isn't; relatively controllable in light weapons (8-15 lbs), light in weight per magazine, can be chambered in smaller lighter weapons, etc. But in reality it lacks what the 7.62x51 brings to the table; punch. I predict that the next generation of weapons will not be 5.56x45.

To bridge the gap the SpecOps community and Remington went out and developed the 6.8SPC. At first glance this sounds like a great round; more hit than the 5.56, less recoil than the 7.62, what's not to like.... The crappy 115gr bullet they saddled it with. The BC of that bullet is not significantly better than the current M855 5.56 bullet, and the SD is about the same also. So the only real gain was diameter. Although the 6.8 could be redisigned with a more normal 130gr .277 diameter bullet I don't think that will happen since the 115 was chosen to duplicate the ballistics of the 5.56. I predict the 6.8SPC will be a great medium game cartridge, but is a dead end for the military.

So what do we want to emulate? How about the tried and true 6.5x55? As a battle cartidge it's rather overlooked, but as a game cartridge it performs well outside it's envelope, why? Because it has always used bullets that were very long for it's diameter. This is a trait shared by the 6x45, for some reason there seems to be a big jump in bullet weight between the .223 and .244. It's this jump that gives the 6x45 a leg up. The 6x45 comes very close to the 6.5x55 in BC with a 90gr FMJ and beats it with a 100gr FMJ, in terms of SD the 100gr comes close to the standard 140gr 6.5 loading.

In the end, of cartridges that currently exist, the 6x45 is very well rounded for an intermediate power cartridge, especially with a 95-100gr bullet. It will hit harder and penetrate better than most any 5.56, have much better external ballistics than the 6.8, and significantly less recoil than the 7.62. All of this and since the parent case is the 5.56x45 case the military would not have to change magazines (or lose capacity), pouches, SAW links, etc. If the military decides to eventually shed the M855 in favor of the Mk262 most of the advantages of the 6mm go out the window; 77gr is pretty heavy for a .223 bullet. There are also a number of other good candidates; the 6.5 Grendel being just one...

All of that being said though, if history is a guide, we wil not step up in caliber/power, but most likely down.

Good Luck,
Bob

There have been a number of excellent cartridges developed that fit the bill. The .280 British cartridge that they were in the process of adopting in the '50s before the U.S. forced the 7.62x51 down all of NATO's throats is a good example.

quote:

In the end, of cartridges that currently exist, the 6x45 is very well rounded for an intermediate power cartridge, especially with a 95-100gr bullet. It will hit harder and penetrate better than most any 5.56,

No, it won't! I know this because I played around with the 6X45 for a while. The only thing I found that it did better than the 5.56 X 45 was getting around hunting regulations that demanded the use of a 6mm diameter bullet or larger for medium game.

6x45 with a 100gr. bullet? Yup! I loaded those too. But you have to use a round nosed bullet to keep the cartridge to magazine length. And they were slow moving piss-poor performers. A 100gr. spitzer bullet would be impractical because it would have to be seated deep into the case reducing powder capacity even more than the 100gr. round nosed bullets.

And these wouldn't be the great 'hard hitters' and 'penetrators' you think they would be.

I see all this lets adopt a new round stuff. But has anyone thought it would be impratical to do right now! We are in the middle of a war in two AOR's. The U.S is having a hard time as it is to keep up with war production for military ammo. Hell they had to order ammo from Israel to be used for qualifications in the U.S.

Also how many of you fellas knew that the Army has changed there qualifications standards. You still qaulify in the supported with 20 rds out to 300 meters, this is nothing new. But now you shoot 10 rds in the un-supported prone and 10 rds in the kneeling position but you only shoot out to 150 meters, in these two positions.

John