Posted on Aug 13, 2015
SPC Dave St.Andrew
4.05K
23
21
2
2
0
Everyone knows that the 5.56 round isn't ideal for combat, but due to the geneva convention, seems like we may be stuck with it.
But what round do you think we should be looking at? IMO, .300blk would be a top choice. Let's look at why.

Its purpose is to achieve ballistics similar to the 7.62×39mm Soviet cartridge in an AR-15 platform while using standard AR-15 magazines at their normal capacity.

While 5.56×45mm NATO has enjoyed widespread acceptance in military circles, the nature of the missions encountered by some special operations groups often demand a round that not only provides better performance than that available in the high-energy standard velocity rounds, but one that can offer subsonic performance greater than the current standard 9mm Luger round.

The 7.62 Soviet's cartridge taper prevented reliable feeding in AR magazines and created wear on the bolt. From the 14.5 in (370 mm) of the M4 Carbine, the M855 5.56×45mm round has an effective point target range of 500 meters. The bullet has significant drop, drift, and energy loss at that distance. From a 16 in (410 mm) barrel, a 125 gr (8.1 g) 300 BLK round has a lower velocity and similar bullet drop and drift at shorter distances. However, it has the same amount of energy at 700 meters that the M855 has at 500 meters. In terms of hit probability, the Blackout has an effective range of 460 meters. From a 9 in (230 mm) barrel, the 125 gr BLK round has the same muzzle energy as the M855 from the M4, and 5 percent more energy at 440 meters. In comparison with 7.62×39mm rounds, 300 BLK rounds with varying loads have a better ballistic coefficient and more energy out of similar length barrels. 300 BLK rounds have "barrier blind" performance, being capable of penetration through several inches of different hard targets. The .30 caliber cartridge has an 89.1 percent increase in frontal bullet area over the 5.56×45mm, and so leaves a large wound cavity in soft targets. It also penetrates deeper and initially yaws faster. 300 BLK rounds are effective out of barrels as short as 4.5 in (110 mm). Weapons chambered for the round can be as light, compact, and quiet when suppressed as submachine guns like the 9 mm Parabellum MP5 and 4.6×30mm MP7 while having more energy and accuracy at longer range.

The 6.8 SPC has a more difficult conversion because it was designed around the .30 Remington cartridge, requiring a different bolt and decreasing standard magazine capacity. The 300 BLK was made specifically for ease of conversion, so the standard bolt will work and a magazine can be used to its full capacity, so the only change needed is the barrel.
Posted in these groups: Weapons logo Weapons
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 10
COL Charles Williams
2
2
0
Edited >1 y ago
I did not know everyone knew that? I spent some time in TRADOC in doing DOTMLPF, and while there are complaints about everything, there are also many positive AAR comments and LLs. 5.56 and 7.62 are just fine. I spent a long time in the Army, and folks were always complaining and second guessing the M-16, M16-A1, A2, A3, M-4... I used them all, and I believe they did just fine. Since we have a need, for logistics reasons, to limit the number of options... if 5.56 is not the answer, then 7.62 (x51) is the best answer if a changed is needed. But, the M-4 is just fine, in my limited view.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SPC Dave St.Andrew
SPC Dave St.Andrew
>1 y
During the GWOT, the 5.56 did not have the stopping power that we needed, 7.62 did, but only the 240 gunners had that.
(0)
Reply
(0)
COL Charles Williams
COL Charles Williams
>1 y
SPC Dave St.Andrew - Are we talking a mounted 5.56 (SAW) or dismounted (M-4)? I believe you are talking M-4? The SAW, while an interim fix (all we had) was never designed to be a mounted a weapon. It is good for what it was designed for, as is the M-4. Perhaps the 7.62 is better for an individual weapon, but it is heavier too, which is a consideration for dismounted forces.

I actually got in an argument with a GS civilian (weapons expert) when I over heard him in the hallway make a comment that SAW was better than M240 based on ballistic properties or some BS like that. I asked him if (A) he had ever been in a firefight, because there is a huge difference (sound alone), and (B) has he asked Soldiers and particularly squad leaders what they thought...
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LCDR Deputy Department Head
2
2
0
You can see just from the vast variety of responses the initial problem. Changing rounds first of all won't make everyone happy. Second every single weapon in the inventory would essentially need to be changed at the same time or there would be risk of having the wrong rounds for the weapon. I don't see it realistically happening any time soon.
(2)
Comment
(0)
SPC George Rudenko
SPC George Rudenko
>1 y
On the head! Spec Ops will always get what they want... but then there are the grunts. Those will need reliable platforms (plurtal) and even then, not everyone will be happy/
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSgt Carpenter
1
1
0
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=5.56+Trajectory+Chart&view=detailv2&&id=8967289A6303AF523E0625ED88A0A97D075F0063&selectedIndex=4&ccid=tcRKm1Gz&simid= [login to see] 91423202&thid=JN.ss09Z8UtE595mEs2hKqbaA&ajaxhist=0

This ballistics chart should help show why I don't think the .300 blackout is worth the hype
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close