FN SCAR-H / Mk.17 rifle prototype in CQC (Close Quarter Combat, short barrel) configuration, 7.62x51 mm NATO version
Posted on 11/15/2005 2:32:39 AM PST by holymoly
November 15, 2005: The U.S. Army’s cancellation of the XM8 (a replacement for the M16) reflects disenchantment with the 5.56mm round, more than anything else. While the 5.56mm bullet was OK when used in an automatic weapon, it is much less useful when you have so many troops who know how to shoot, and can hit targets just as easily with single shots. In addition to better shooting skills, the troops also have much better sights, both for day and night use. It’s much more effective to fire less often, if you have troops who can do that and hit what they are shooting at with the first shot. Most American troops can.
Moreover, the 5.56mm round is less effective in urban fighting, where you often want to shoot through doors and walls. The 5.56mm round is not as effective at doing this as is the heavier 7.62mm bullet. And the troops have plenty of 7.62mm weapons available, in order to compare. There is the M240 medium machine-gun. While this 7.62mm weapon is usually mounted on vehicles, it is often taken off and used by infantry for street fighting. Lots of 1960s era 7.62mm M14 rifles have also been taken out of storage and distributed. While used mainly as sniper rifles, the snipers do other work on the battlefield as well, and the troops have been able to see that the heavier 7.62mm round does a better job of shooting through cinder block walls, and taking down bad guys with one shot. Too often, enemy troops require several 5.56mm bullets to put them out of action.
In a situation like that, it makes more sense to carry a heavier round. The question is, which one? The army has been experimenting with a 6.8mm round, but now some are demanding that the full size 7.62mm round be brought back. There are M16 type weapons that use the full size 7.62mm round (and the lower powered AK-47 7.62mm round). The new SOCOM SCAR rifle can quickly be adapted to using all of the above by swapping out the barrel and receiver. Could be that the army is going to wait and see what SOCOM decides to do.
The other big complaint about the M16 is it’s sensitivity to fine dust, as found in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. This stuff causes the rifle (and the light machine-gun version, the M243), to jam. Troops have to be cleaning these weapons constantly. Another problem with the M243 is that most of the ones in service are very old, and in need of a replacement (with new M243s, or a new weapon design.) The XM8 solved much of the “dust sensitivity” problem, but part of the problem was the smaller round.
A decision on the army’s new assault rifle will probably come sooner, rather than later, because the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are making a lot of Internet noise over the issue.
Which sounds like an argument for the M1903 Springfield.
I read somewhere that the VC typically carried a very low ammo load -- 30 or 60 rounds or so. Any truth to that? And they dropped their packs in a rear area before walking in, which our guys didn't do. Gave them a terrific weight/fatigue advantage.
FN SCAR-H / Mk.17 rifle prototype in CQC (Close Quarter Combat, short barrel) configuration, 7.62x51 mm NATO version
Roger the lighter weight, but I recall reading long, long ago that the 5.56 caliber and the M-16 itself were designed around the concept of jungle warfare and the containment mission, with recent experience in the Philippines and Malaya in mind. You might say the M-16 was designed for "one, two, many Vietnams", and not for the European or Korean theaters at all.
One advantage of FN is that they're guaranteed to be drop-resistant.
M14 bump ...
Truth comes out, eventually.
Agree. It doesn't have to be fired until empty, and can be topped off with loose rounds, stripper clip, or simply swap magazines.
bump for later. thanks for the post.
Well, it's not doing so well in the desert or urban environments.
It seems to me that a small caliber round is good for a squad weapon that's used in the full auto role often. Smaller equals less weight per round, so the SAW operator can carry more rounds. Meanwhile, the average infantryman should be carrying a larger round for more precise, and more lethal, shooting.
When I was in boot camp, I had an M-14. Loved that rifle and what it could do. Then I got to ITR and they gave us M-16s. How I hated that thing.
Now I have a Chinese SKS. Put some decent sights on it and that is one nifty weapon.
Now, now. Dieudonne Saive was an acolyte of John Moses Browning through the FN Herstal connection. The FAL is a fine piece of hardware with a great pedigree. Ask the Brit paras who took the Falklands, the Selous Scouts, and any number of other serious soldiers.
The other is the wound factor. It is a fact that if there is a wounded soldier, it takes two or three others out of action to take care on them...one of the reasons 5.56 was created. The other is close quarter combat. A 16 to 20 inch barrel would be preferred I think...
Again, I have never been in combat so I cannot voice strongly on the need for more "knock down" power. If one does change what they shoot, this has it's pros and cons as well...meaning if they enemy gets yer gun, his bullets will fit into it...
The standard armament for a WWII era rifle squad was:
1 BAR (Squad Auto weapon)
Everyone else, M1 Garand
There were usually exceptions, ie non-coms and radio operators with a Tommy gun or M1 Carbine, but this was the basic layout.
It seemed to work well, except for the BAR shooter having to carry so much ammo.
Seems to me that if you replaced the BAR (and it hurts to consider that, but let's face it, the dern thing is heavy and so is all of that .30-06 ammo) with a 5.56 squad weapon, you'd have the same basic layout with the advantage of the auto gunner being able to pack more ammo.
The Garand is big and heavy too, but we would want to decrease the weight of the weapon, not the caliber.
See my posts #28 & #32.
from let to right: British experimental .280 (7x43mm) cartridge for EM-2; Soviet 7.62x39mm M43; US/NATO 5.56x45mm (.223 Rem); US/NATO 7.62x51mm (.308 Win)
Caliber: 7x43 mm (.280 British)
Action: Gas operated
Overall length: 889 mm
Barrel length: 623 mm
Weight: 3.41 kg with empty magazine
Rate of fire: 450 - 600 rounds per minute (depends on source)
Magazine capacity: 20 rounds
comparison table: British .280 caliber intermediate cartridge vs. most common modern military cartridges
ballistic data is estimated using Norma ballistic calculator and Sierra Bullets data on ballistic coefficients.
| 5.56x45mm NATO | 7x43mm EM-2 | 7.6x39mm M43 | 7.62x51mm NATO | |
| bullet weight | 4.01 g (62 gr) | 9.08 g (140 gr) | 7.9 g (122 gr) | 9.72 g (150 gr) |
| bullet velocity, at muzzle | 921 m/s | 745 m/s | 710 m/s | 860 m/s |
| bullet velocity, at 300 yards (273 meters) | 585 m/s | 570 m/s | 470 m/s | 674 m/s |
| bullet velocity, at 550 yards (500 meters) | 385 m/s | 450 m/s | 341 m/s | 516 m/s |
| bullet energy, at muzzle | 1700 J | 2519 J | 1991 J | 3594 J |
| bullet energy, at 300 yards (273 meters) | 686 J | 1475 J | 872 J | 2207 J |
| bullet energy, at 550 yards (500 meters) | 297 J | 919 J | 460 J | 1294 J |
"Troops in Iraq regularly report that while shooting at cars that run checkpoints that 5.56 rounds fail to penetrate sufficiently to stop the car."
That's what a 25mm Bushmaster cannon is for :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.