Should the 5.56 Nato round be replaced after this conflict?

2016-05-09T16:41:10-04:00

Their has been many discussions on the effectiveness of this round, what are your thoughts

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 4:42 PM

2016-05-09T16:42:38-04:00

Of course, but it won't l.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 4:43 PM

2016-05-09T16:43:48-04:00

I have not been following the issues. Is it the round, or the delivery system(s)?

Response by GySgt Bill Smith made May 9 at 2016 4:47 PM

2016-05-09T16:47:08-04:00

Your talking big money to replace 5.56 round. You would have to replace all M16,M4,M249, mags, and gear. Plus the cost of the ammo its self would be higher.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 9 at 2016 4:51 PM

2016-05-09T16:51:43-04:00

Debatable.

Advantage of the 5.56 is you get A LOT of them, and the AR15 (M16/M4) platform IS and "everyman" platform. It's dead simple to use. You can carry a lot of rounds, and teach people to use it very quickly. Upping the round size creates a few potential issues. Either we lose out on Weight (less rounds for equal weight, or more weight for equal rounds), less firepower (less rounds per above), massive changes to the logistics chain including Ammo, Parts (barrels, chambers, mag assemblies, etc).

It's all "second order effects."

The "Life cycle" of the AR platform is probably another 15-20 years before we MUST change. At that point we will look at different ammo. Until then, we will adjust our current ammo, but it will still be 5.56.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made May 9 at 2016 4:53 PM

2016-05-09T16:53:04-04:00

Good for varmits you know squirrels and shit

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 9 at 2016 4:55 PM

2016-05-09T16:55:26-04:00

Well NATO is more geared toward Peace Keeping, so their rounds work just fine.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made May 9 at 2016 4:55 PM

2016-05-09T16:55:55-04:00

I think that the logical place to begin this discussion would be to find agreement on the criteria for selecting the best choice (obviously "perfect" is unattainable). Inasmuch as the vast majority of rounds are expended for purposes other than "kill shots" (fire suppression, recon by fire, etc, etc, etc) we might conclude that two rounds are preferred together with a over/under weapon that fired both. In that way, an infantryman could carry a larger supply of the smaller, lighter ammo to be fired in greater quantity.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made May 9 at 2016 5:07 PM

2016-05-09T17:07:58-04:00

And go to the 7.62x51 NATO hell yeah! Could keep all the lowers we already have and get new uppers for the AR-10 and have a 7.62 round!

Response by SGT Philip Roncari made May 9 at 2016 6:17 PM

2016-05-09T18:17:50-04:00

My friends that are shooters tell me that the 5.56 round is a very effective on varmints but since our current crop of varmints are a bit larger maybe the 7.62 would be a better choice,unfortunate the Military doesn't get to call the shots no pun intended

Response by CPL Ricky Vasquez made May 9 at 2016 9:37 PM

2016-05-09T21:37:51-04:00

yes

Response by 1LT William Clardy made May 10 at 2016 7:15 AM

2016-05-10T07:15:58-04:00

And then there is the all-or-nothing way that the Army approaches these things...

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/05/08/lsat-6-5mm-plastic-cased-ammo-armys-next-small-arms-program

I really like that 9.7-pound "unoptimized" weight without any gadgetry strapped on. We've made so much progress reducing the soldiers' load in the years since we issued 6.3-pound M16 rifles.

LSAT 6.5mm Plastic-Cased Ammo, and the Army's Next Small Arms Program - The Firearm Blog

The National Defense Industry Association has released the PowerPoint presentations from 2016 Armament Systems Forum, includingKori Phillips’ update on the Cased Telescoped Small Arms Systems (CTSAS) program, which is the successor to the well-known Lightweight Small Arms Technologies program (LSAT). Of special note in the presentation is the program’s decision to explore (and, to an … Read More …

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made May 10 at 2016 8:15 AM

2016-05-10T08:15:36-04:00

Not until they can perfect a caseless round. I want more ammo per pound, not less.

Response by SGT Jason Hartnett made May 10 at 2016 9:32 AM

2016-05-10T09:32:50-04:00

Me I say go .308 / 7.62x 51. In the same rifle configuration.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 10:09 AM

2016-05-10T10:09:09-04:00

The reason something like the 5.56 NATO was selected, over other rounds of the day, was portability. A round has weight, simple statement. Now, imagine carrying hundreds of rounds for a rifle, the magazines to hold bigger rounds, a bigger weapon to shoot the bigger round. A soldier can only carry so much weight. They have so much room on their person to lug gear. In WW2, they were getting away from the venerable M1 Garand for a couple of reasons. First, the clips held limited rounds; six I believe. Second, the tell tail "ping" announcing "hey, come get me, I've gotta reload over here!" Third, the weigh for many 30-06 round was weighing down the soldiers. This was part and partial to the creation of the M1 Carbine, but it had it's flaws too: a bolt retaining pin that would fail and limited projectile range. Ever wonder why the 7.62x51 NATO and the 30-06 look like cut a section out of one and created the other? It's probably because they did it for weight and portability. Then enters the M14, it didn't fair well in jungle environments and shot the lighter, but less portable 7.62 NATO round. Solders were having to carry more rounds and less provisions to sustain themselves in combat. This gave rise to the M-16. Less weight in the weapon, ammo, and magazines. Simpler to maintain and better portability of supporting gear. A bullet that was devastating to the enemy, if hit by it. But, late on, Command wanted a weapon that was more accurate at longer ranges and could do more, but weigh about the same as the M-16. This brought on the A1 model: better weight, handling, and the introduction of the forward assist. With the A2 came a far more accurate round, even better ballistics, armor piercing capabilities, and removal of the full-auto option, going to a 3-round burst. Now, we are closer to today in this path of military firepower. Command sees the protective gear getting into the way of using their weapons, so they have a collapsing stock created to replace the fixed stock. Technology has increased, get rid of the fixed carry handle for improved electronic sights. Shorten the barrel, as more fighting will be closer combat. Now, non-military developers get a hold of the design and start "tweeking" it, adding new rounds to its capabilities: 204 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 Blackout/Whisper, 7.62 x 39, 9mm x 19, 45 ACP, 458 SOCOM, 500 Beowulf, and even the 50 BMG. The only fault of the M-16 is you get a piece of sand between the bolt carrier and the breach face, you will not get the bolt to lock. Thus, a weapon that will not shoot, until the object is cleared. Now, I will admit that most of this is information I have learned and some guessed at, over the years. You can bet that they are still looking at the big killers of the combat soldier: portability and weight. They are doing this, while maintaining operability and simplicity for the soldier in the field. Now, if you want a new round, what would you want and have for the soldier use and carry into combat? And, for two cents, I will throw in my opinion: the 300 blackout. Pros of this are: heavier projectile, fewest changes to the current weapon platform, better at closer range combat, ballistics that closely mimic the 7.62 x 39. Now for the cons: shorter range, possible over penetratio

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made May 10 at 2016 10:49 AM

2016-05-10T10:49:32-04:00

The 5.56 is a NATO standard round and is not going to be replaced anytime soon. You can neck it up to use a larger bullet but are performance limited by the case capacity of the propellant. And you'd have to rebarrel the rifle and mg's. Maybe change all weapons back to 30'06!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 3:23 PM

2016-05-10T15:23:21-04:00

Not until we adopt a new personal small arm to replace the M-4, not to mention the SAW.

I'm no ballistics guru...but what intelligent discussion I've heard would lead me to conclude that the scuttlebutt about "stopping power" is more accurately detailed as the lack of a disturbed flight when used as a carbine round instead of a light automatic weapon round (what it was made for). If true, then maybe we keep the 5.56 M249 and replace the carbine with something like the 7.62 SOCOM?

Response by LTC Kevin Peel made May 10 at 2016 6:46 PM

2016-05-10T18:46:13-04:00

Question to all the experts:

How do we train Soldiers to shoot

Answer:

On a pop-up range where the target falls whether you nick it in the shoulder or achieve the equivalent of a central nervous system hit.

So what's my point?

We send Soldiers to combat, they engage the enemy, and they expect them to fall just like in training. The immediate default is to blame caliber and platform. It couldn't possibly be the fact that they aren't trained properly and can't shoot.

Chew on that.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 6:58 PM

2016-05-10T18:58:21-04:00

While I have issues with the 5.56, it is fine for what it's designed to do and it's lighter (meaning you can carry more) than most of the alternatives. Factor in the cost of switching, it's a no brainier to me. I find that most who support changing to a larger round have never used it in a fight. My issue is more with the gas impingement system used on most of our rifles. I would like to see us switch to a piston system, although both have advantages and disadvantages. Just my .02.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 10 at 2016 8:21 PM

2016-05-10T20:21:51-04:00

Just use a better 5.56 round... SOF has been doing it for years.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made May 11 at 2016 1:45 AM

2016-05-11T01:45:30-04:00

If we used bullets with optimized terminal performance, such as hollow-points, I do not think it'd be an issue. 7.62x51 and the earlier 30-06 are both very good calibers, no doubt about it, but they also recoil more, are heavier, and thus more time (and expense) must be committed to training AND sustaining the Soldier's proficiency. And 7.62mm platforms are heavy as hell. An M4 with optics, lasers, light and foregrip feels about as heavy as the naked M-14 I trained on when I was in the Navy, but the M-14 didn't have an optic, laser and flashlight.

Or we could just use hollow-point bullets and we could move on to new business.

My real concern is that the M16 family is mature technology, we have generations of information on how, when and why it fails, its strengths and limitations, but historically, there were some very significant teething problems when it was first procured that I would rather not deal with again.

Or we could just use hollow-point bullets, and move on to new business.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 6 at 2016 6:33 PM

2016-06-06T18:33:28-04:00

Leave it be. The cost to replace our current arsenal would be monumental. Plus, everyone I ever shot with 5.56 dropped. It's all about shot placement.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Apr 11 at 2018 4:21 PM

2018-04-11T16:21:38-04:00

Yes, with 6.5 mm Grendel.