what rounds should next-generation service rifles use?

[griftadan]

i vote for the 6.8mm remington. it seems pretty balanced between power, range and portability. then id go for the 7.62 NATO, but i definately think its time for a change.

ive also heard good things about the 6.5mm grendel, but i dont know much about it.

i heard the xm-8s going to use the 5.56mm NATO, but i also heard that it can be converted to support beefier calibers.

[Fury]

by 7.62mm you mean 7.62x51 nato, right :)

[otomik]

that's a tough one. the 6.8x43mm SPC does what it's designed to do very well (improved stopping power inside 500 meters in 5.56mm based weapons systems).
They tested a whole variety of calibers before settling on 6.8mm

It's important to differentiate 6.8mm from supposed "one true sword" cartridges designed to do everything (early 7.62x51mm claims, current chinese claims about the 5.8x42mm and Indian claims about their version of 5.56mm in their INSAS).

For the US which doesn't have big military alliances to worry about for the most part, 6.8mm bears serious consideration. but other countries that rely on NATO for their defence would to well to stick to the STANAG 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm.

the statement "stick with 5.56mm" could use some more nuance. 55 grain M193? 62 Grain SS109? 77 Grain Mk262? There's some real worries that the XM8 has too short a barrel and that current SS109 won't fragment beyond 25 meters in the standard configuration.

Anyway it's a tough question.

I wish they adopted a 6mm cartridge firing a 107 projectile about 2900fps, it would be a do everything cartridge, easy to use and make for cheap deer and varmint ammo in the states. The 6.8mm SPC had a cartridge length to conform to so it would fit 5.56mm based weapons, if that requirement were taken away it could mean a better cartridge but it would mean logistics problems at a time when some soldiers in iraq are complaining about not having enough 5.56mm ammo.

Recommended Reading:
http://www.thegunzone.com/556faq.html#262-0
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm
http://shootersforum.com/showthread....2&page=3&pp=15
http://www.g2mil.com/6mm_optimum_cartridge.htm
http://www.natec-us.com/products.asp

[AussieSoldier]

5.56mm For Me

No doubt in my mind that the 5.56mm round is the way to go for anti personal.
The reason why I think this is the case is that if you kill a soldier, the man is dead, the section or squad will continue the fight and then drag him away to make shift HQ where they will supervise the body and record the details. Now if you wound the soldier, a man that is spurting blood, screaming, it creates caos and caos has the potential to create mistakes. It also takes 8 or 9 men out of the fight to evacuate the casualty, provide all round protection and perform first aid on the man who is wounded. He will be then taken to a casualty unit where he will be given greater care. The 5.56mm round is ideal for maiming the enemy and that in my opinion is better then killing them because of a greater shock value to diminish moral of his fellow soldiers and it also takes him out of the fight, the majority of the time, permantly. It also takes more soldiers out of the fight to look after the casualty. Obviously, I would rather 7.62 mm for light skinned vehicles and added stopping power but a couple of these a squad is sufficant. You may scoff at the suggestion of staying with the smaller projectile however I put it to you that if effective fire is being put on your position, you will keep your head down, no matter weather it is a .223 or a .308.

[Officer of Engineers]

For the US which doesn't have big military alliances to worry about for the most part, 6.8mm bears serious consideration. but other countries that rely on NATO for their defence would to well to stick to the STANAG 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm.

No, if the US decides on the 6.8mm, the rest of NATO would have no choice but to follow. We have to be able to exchange stocks in times of war, especially, if we're serving under an American lead Coalition.

That being said, I am trying very hard to not to get my hopes up for the 6.8

The 5.56mm round is ideal for maiming the enemy and that in my opinion is better then killing them because of a greater shock value to diminish moral of his fellow soldiers and it also takes him out of the fight, the majority of the time, permantly. It also takes more soldiers out of the fight to look after the casualty.

That's one of the biggest misconceptions out there. The 5.56NATO is not designed to main. It's designed to leave a big wound from which you will die. None of the dogs and goats I saw the tests performed on survived.

[AussieSoldier]

No, if the US decides on the 6.8mm, the rest of NATO would have no choice but to follow. We have to be able to exchange stocks in times of war, especially, if we're serving under an American lead Coalition.

That being said, I am trying very hard to not to get my hopes up for the 6.8



That's one of the biggest misconceptions out there. The 5.56NATO is not designed to main. It's designed to leave a big wound from which you will die. None of the dogs and goats I saw the tests performed on survived.

I think that I kind of spewed my own words there, what I meant was the 5.56mm nato F1 ball as its full name is in the Australian Army, projectile is more likely to cause maiming then a 7.62 mm or larger calibre bullet, it is obviously up to the firerer's intent and ability to pull that off. I personally would rather wound someone if I had the time to zero in on a point target as per my reasons above. The 5.56mm round is a good projectile to maim, I have seen what it does and not on goats either. The reason why it is good is it has a tendency to richochet off bones and not go straight through, for example, the bullet can hit the upper leg, richochet up and come out the lower back with a good size exit wound. Obviously if you hit the upper leg, they will probably die because of blood loss however I know that a lot of inexperianced soldiers would list it as a prior 2, life or limb in serious danger instead of the higher prior one, life is in serious danger like a sucking chest or head wound. Therefore, they would try to get their mate to a field hospital as quickly as possible, taking as many men as possible out of the fight to achieve this as per my point above. I hope I have cleared this up.

[Officer of Engineers]

The 5.56mm round is a good projectile to maim, I have seen what it does and not on goats either. The reason why it is good is it has a tendency to richochet off bones and not go straight through, for example, the bullet can hit the upper leg, richochet up and come out the lower back with a good size exit wound.

My experience in the field is a bit different than yours. When we returned fire, it's usually with the intent to kill. I saw no one getting up after being hit by one of our guys.

[AussieSoldier]

My experience in the field is a bit different than yours. When we returned fire, it's usually with the intent to kill. I saw no one getting up after being hit by one of our guys.

Fair enough and a lot of people would agree with you however, the guy isn't going to be getting up if you wound him, hes going to be screaming, covered in blood, with his buddies trying to get him out of there, my arguement and I think it has been lost a bit was you take another 8 or 9 guys out by forcing them to stretcher carry him to the field hospital. Thats what I am talking about. You greatly incapacitate your enemy by a wound by smashing morale and taking more guys out of the fight, you kill, bang, you got one guy out of the fight, you wound, its shit, jonesey is hit, "medic, come on guys we have to get him to rear ech".

[Fury]

Not all armies risk 8 or 9 guys to save one.

[otomik]

I The 5.56mm round is a good projectile to maim, I have seen what it does and not on goats either.

what your offering is anecdotel, what makes you think 6.8mm or 7.62mm wouldn't do this better? any spitzer shaped projectile tumbles and flips around in a fluid medium.

6.8mm I don't think it's as likely to be adopted by NATO, it took them a long time to adopt 5.56mm (1980 the 62 grain SS109 was adopted). We're not looking at a big landwar in europe anymore. Other NATO countries might follow France's lead and opt out of security portions of NATO. France has been using it's NATO and UN votes to block the US, just for spite. It's a mutual "Fuck'em" in the nicest possible diplomatic language. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...0807-9389r.htm

another interesting possibility with 5.56mm is a switch to a heavier bullet.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm (everything about the 5.56mm you care to know)
The standard 1 in 7'' twist allows for some really long heavy bullets with good ballistic co-efficients (more aerodynamic, good at keeping it's velocity for long distance shots). say 77 grain or 80 grain bullets which are the longest that fit into standard magazines. Powder technology is getting better and the cartridge casing could be strengthened from 55k to 60k+ psi. It's just a matter of time finding a good compromise that will push that bullet with as much energy as is controllable in full auto and is still reasonably safe for the equipment and operator. Still we're talking about incremental improvements but they wouldn't piss off the alliances or budget minders (who would love to free up more money to throw at the useless murderous V-22 program!).

anyway some kind of improvement is going to be needed if the americans adopt a rifle with a standard barrel length of 12.5'', the rest of the world (steyr, tavor, L85, famas, sar-21, QBZ-95) is adopting bullpups with longer barrels. That means lower velocities and that means 5.56mm coming out of standard american M8 rifles will be the weakest 5.56NATO in the world.

[Officer of Engineers]

We're not looking at a big landwar in europe anymore. Other NATO countries might follow France's lead and opt out of security portions of NATO. France has been using it's NATO and UN votes to block the US, just for spite.

France has never been able to use its NATO association to block anything of the US. By treaty and by force numbers, the US remains the biggest force in NATO with Turkey being the second. France is not a member of NATO's Planning Committee and thus has no say in NATO's operational requirements.

Whether other country would follow France or not is for the Crystal Ball to decide. I can say that without the US, no other country in NATO would be able to meet its Treaty Obligations. If any country do decide to follow France, their military effectiveness would be reduced, not increased.

[otomik]

honestly i don't know, but i'm saying that NATO doesn't have a clear mission anymore and we (speaking as an american) got no real reason to hang around europe with them anymore. France and Germany seem to resent any american influence in their affairs. They seem to be quickly making friends amongst themselves with their mutual security packs and rapid reaction forces.

this could get far off topic, but i don't think NATO is that important to the US now.

[Officer of Engineers]

honestly i don't know, but i'm saying that NATO doesn't have a clear mission anymore

Force projection across the globe.

and we (speaking as an american) got no real reason to hang around europe with them anymore.

11 Sept proved the alliance's worth to the US (you wouldn't know that because compared to the US's response, the allied response is minor but compared to the rest of the world, ... well, no one could have done what non-American NATO allies did) but other than that, how about the US's command of over 2 million non-American troops?

France and Germany seem to resent any american influence in their affairs. They seem to be quickly making friends amongst themselves with their mutual security packs and rapid reaction forces.

We all resent American influence in our internal affairs. However, we do expect more of American leadership in international affairs than is fair to the Americans. As for Euro Force, it's a very poor immitation of NATO's Immediate Reaction Force. The Europeans are scoring political points at home and abroad with Euro Force but militarily, they have to rely on NATO's IRF (read American assets) to get things done.

this could get far off topic, but i don't think NATO is that important to the US now.

Only if you think the US is undeserving and unwanting of the Leadership Role she practises in NATO.

[AussieSoldier]

what your offering is anecdotel, what makes you think 6.8mm or 7.62mm wouldn't do this better? any spitzer shaped projectile tumbles and flips around in a fluid medium.

6.8mm I don't think it's as likely to be adopted by NATO, it took them a long time to adopt 5.56mm (1980 the 62 grain SS109 was adopted). We're not looking at a big landwar in europe anymore. Other NATO countries might follow France's lead and opt out of security portions of NATO. France has been using it's NATO and UN votes to block the US, just for spite. It's a mutual "Fuck'em" in the nicest possible diplomatic language. http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...0807-9389r.htm

another interesting possibility with 5.56mm is a switch to a heavier bullet.
http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm (everything about the 5.56mm you care to know)
The standard 1 in 7'' twist allows for some really long heavy bullets with good ballistic co-efficients (more aerodynamic, good at keeping it's velocity for long distance shots). say 77 grain or 80 grain bullets which are the longest that fit into standard magazines. Powder technology is getting better and the cartridge casing could be strengthened from 55k to 60k+ psi. It's just a matter of time finding a good compromise that will push that bullet with as much energy as is controllable in full auto and is still reasonably safe for the equipment and operator. Still we're talking about incremental improvements but they wouldn't piss off the alliances or budget minders (who would love to free up more money to throw at the useless murderous V-22 program!).

anyway some kind of improvement is going to be needed if the americans adopt a rifle with a standard barrel length of 12.5'', the rest of the world (steyr, tavor, L85, famas, sar-21, QBZ-95) is adopting bullpups with longer barrels. That means lower velocities and that means 5.56mm coming out of standard american M8 rifles will be the weakest 5.56NATO in the world.

You are right in your opinions and for the most part I do agree however my daddy always used to say, "if it aren't broke why fix it?". It is a reliable projectile, does the job and is also compatable as you clearly point out with other service rifles.

[AussieSoldier]

Not all armies risk 8 or 9 guys to save one.

so what do they do, leave him there wounded? I think you are getting off topic.