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.
Switching up to a gas-piston upper will help with that FPS problem on a SBR. The new HK-416's are sweet, as are the POF P-415/P-416 uppers.
I agree with you.
5.56mm made sense in Viet Nam, where long foot patrols were typical, with resupply in doubt. Soldiers had to carry enough bullets to hold off enemy for long periods until helos could bring in resupply, often over night.
Plus, the old 55 grain slug out of a long M-16A1 barrel was vicious, barely stable in flight and easily upset when hitting the enemy at 3,000+ FPS.
Today, firing the very stable 62 grain slug out of a short M-4 barrel greatly diminishes its wounding and killing power. The 62 grain fast twist bullets at lower velocities often make clean through and through icepick wounds. They don't tumble.
Today, troops ride to the fight, and carrying 450 rounds on their persons is not as important as it was in VN. Also, enemy are fighting from behind mud or block walls, and soldiers need a round which will punch through. 5.56 won't. 7.62 NATO will.
I had heard that Klinton gave most of them away to Albanians during his wonderful war and had many cut up. Glad we have a few left. My favorite is the BM59, the improved garand with a box magazine.
mc
I suspect generals like the strategic argument that a wounded soldier takes three out of combat.
Grunts, however, probably like the tactical argument of "one shot one kill" since it's damned dangerous to be in a position to get that one shot and wounded soldiers can still kill YOU.
If you were operating the weapon instead of computers, which side would you come down on?
I can't locate the XM-8 of late nooooze either......
Not that I care for it.....I really don't.
Since you put it that way, I think I would still choose 5.56, but through a mini-gun!! ...or what ever they shoot...copy??...
Hey, I'm no grunt so what ever they say is the best, I'll just sit back and watch!!
The standard armament for a WWII era rifle squad was:
1 BAR (Squad Auto weapon)
everyone else, M1 Garand
The key is that all of the US long arms (with the exception of the M1 Carbine) used the same cartridge. The M1 Garand, BAR, and the M-1919 machineguns all used the same .30 cartridge (30/06). And all of the US sidearms and sub-machineguns used a single cartridge as well, the .45ACP.
Mark
Actually, there was the RPK, which was an AK with a heavy barrel, bipod and drum magazine....
Neither is quite true. The next phase has been officially cancelled, but that does not cancel the whole project. What's next is unclear.
But while we're in the debate, what about the FMJ requirement contained in the treaties our enemies routinely ignore? Politically that restriction is etched in stone surrounded by a force field. I'd suspect our "allies" would challenge some of the modern ammunition being discussed here, if not on technical grounds then on the spirit of the Convention.
Makes sense, though there's certainly plenty of potential with an M2 as well, I'd think.
In same class as the Johnson MG variant. The M-14 was also used in this role, but without the Drum magazine.
I suspect it depended on what they THOUGHT the situation was...
They would prepare for an assault in one manner, move through "safe" areas in a different manner and move through "dangerous" areas in still another manner..
Charlie wasn't stupid or suicidal....fought most effectivly when they initiated the fight and not so effectively when the time/place and manner of fight was out of their control..
Semper Fi
That's true, but today's troops in Iraq need the power of 7.62 more than they need to carry 450 rounds (of 5.56).
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.