Posted on 11/17/2005 7:52:28 PM PST by strategofr
I had no idea the XM-8 was canceled. Wow.
"Wyatt Earp [IIRC] is vindicated! "One aimed shot is better than...". "
He's always vindicated. Great book on him published over past 5 years or so. Really great Western man.
"Can you hear me now? Good."
LOL!
If you can read the insignia on my cap---you are DEAD!
It ain't the bullet it's the tumble.
"I had no idea the XM-8 was canceled. Wow."
Within the last year.
"The Terminator: Phased-plasma rifle in the forty watt range.
Pawn Shop Clerk: Hey, just what you see, pal."
I saw those videos of the XM-8, where they pulled it out of the sand and fired it, pulled it out of a drum of water and fired it, stuck the drum on and fired it with one hand, etc. I thought it was an amazing weapon...and it was cancelled???
Boy, SOMEONE better address this bullet weight issue and move this stuff forward! It is the 21st Century, Boys!
"and it was cancelled???"
Nobody really wanted it, except the cheerleaders.
Reports of its greatness were overly hyped.
If you can see me at all...you are DEAD! Please stand up and make this easier on all of us. It's not guaranteed painless if you hide.
5.56mm bullets *don't* "tumble" in flight, or you wouldn't be able to reliably hit anything at all past 90 yards. 5.56mm bullets fly straight to the target (allowing for normal bullet drop) and, if they hit the target at a high enough velocity (2600-2700 FPS at impact) they *fragment* inside the enemy as they turn sideways. This can produce an unusually nasty wound, but this fragmentation only happens out to about 150 yards from 20" inch-barrel rifles, and 100 yards from 16" inch-barrel rifles. There are different types of M-16/AR-15-tye rounds that can improve upon these figures.
Everyone should remember that the 5.56mm round was chosen for 3 main reasons:
1. Lightweight ammunition - a soldier can carry more than twice as many rounds of 5.56mm as 7.62 X 51mm or 30-'06 ammunition for the same weight.
2. 5.56mm weapons are far more controllable when firing full auto.
3. Military researchers found that most infantry rifle combat took place within 100 yards, and it was judged that the 5.56mm round would be sufficient at such ranges.
Any replacement round would have to keep these points in mind. I for one would like to see them scrap the 5.56mm round, and go with something in the 90-110 grain range (6.8mm is about 110-115gr). At the very least, the military should look into the 68-80gr 5.56mm bullets fired from 1/7 twist rifles, which have been getting better ballistic results than 55-62gr rounds.
The XM-8 mechanism is more reliable than the M-16 mechanism, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an up-gunned version of the XM-8 arise.
Thanks for the informative response.
But I suppose that would be too politically incorrect. Because then we'd have to admit that someone over there figured out a better widget than we did.
Product improve the AK-47 rifle and Americanize it. That way our troops can pick up ammo/mags from the dead enemy and use it in a pinch.
Yep. Make the most use of the ammo caches.
Nope.
AR-15 uses the .223 (5.56 mm) round.
Same as the M-16.
It's interesting how we have come full-circle.
Before WWI, the German 7.92mm led to the development of the U.S. .30-06 and the British .303. There were some powerful, long-range infantry rifles on the Western Front.
After WWI, some studies concluded that we didn't need the full-power .30 cartridges in standard infantry rifles.
John Garand first developed his M-1 rifle in .270, holding 10-rounds per clip. But with WWII looming, Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur said we needed to keep the .30-06, partly because we had so much of it in stock. He was probably right. As another Freeper noted, our WWII infantry squads had the advantage of using the same caliber for riflemen (M-1), sharpshooters (M-1903), squad automatic weapons (BAR), and Browning machine guns.
The Germans began developing their 7.92mm intermediate round in the 1930's, but didn't make the new cartridge and new assault rifles a priority until they started losing on the Eastern Front. When the Russians saw this new round (not to mention the new StG44 rifle), they developed it as their 7.62 X 39mm, using it for the post-war AK-47.
After WWII, as a Freeper noted, the British "ideal calibre panel" recommended .280 for the next generation of infantry rifles. I think there was even an early FN-FAL chambered for .280.
But we forced our new 7.62 X 51mm on NATO, and insisted that this was the best round. Until we later forced NATO to also accept the 5.56mm as an additional cartridge in the inventory, saying we had reconsidered.
The Russians saw our M-16's, and later developed the 5.45mm AK-74 as their standard issue.
Now our combat troops realize they can't always get a full burst of 5.56mm fire into a bad guy, and they can't rely on one hit to stop him. So we are again looking at 6.8mm or 7.62mm as as possible replacement for the 5.56mm. Full circle.
Whatever we decide, I think we should get the opinion of combat infantry veterans, asking them how much power they need in an infantry rifle vs. how much weight they are willing to carry. We should consider how important it is for one shot to reliably knock down a bad guy. I have this feeling that from 1898 until today, the military bureaucrats haven't always asked the grunts for advice. (I can't resist a political comment: I never liked Robert Strange McNamera.)
I've never been in combat (I was 04B, "Chairborne!"), but I've fired an M-1, M-14, M-16A1, M-16A2, and M-249. I prefer the M-14 and the 7.62 X 51mm NATO round.
I'm a big fan of 7mm rounds (and like you, not a big fan of Strange McNamara). But that doesn't make up for the fact that any such rifle will be years away from deployment. If our guys want it, we should re-issue the M-14's we have now. I've always believed that giving operators what they want is the way to win wars.
Still, if we can do no better than a round whose roots date back to the turn of the last century, then shame on our military small arms establishment. What have they been doing in the 4 DECADES since the introduction of the 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.