Think the AR-15 is dying?

[Metapotent]

Actually, field/combat trials were done with 6.8 Rem SPC, and the decision was made to drop the program based on the findings -- 5.56mm gets the job done at typical battlefield ranges, and issue of 7.62mm SR-25s and 5.56mm SPRs shooting Mk 262 ammo pretty much addressed the same issues 6.8mm was supposed to fix. (The perceived problem was not CQB range lethality of 5.56mm, but terminal ballistics at 2-400 meters with 5.56mm from a 14.5" or shorter barrel.)

Do you think that these "field/combat" trials were rigged from the beginning so that it would appear that the good ol' NATO rounds were adequate for political purposes?

Many INDEPENDENT tests have shown that the 6.8 out performed the 5.56 in every area, and was even capable of duplicating 7.62 ballistics at ranges out to 600 meters.

Now, do you think perhaps the Military wants to hold on to the 5.56 so they can save money for other programs (Stryker, Future Combat systems) and avoid the costs of logistics changes and the immense amount of money and effort they would need to exert to make new contracts, replace old guns, and find something that they can do with the trillions (literally trillions) of 5.56rounds in storage?

Who knows, but all I know is that the 6.8 that I shot was FAR more accurate than the 5.56, didn't kick very much more, and did some serious damage to water jugs at ranges out to 300yds.

But perhaps in a larger war, the overall larger amount of 5.56 rounds that flew through the air would cause more casualties than the 6.8 would to enemy forces. But the "shoot-to-wound" tactic that would have been effective during the cold war doesn't seem to be the best idea now that we are fighting terrorists who don't fight conventionally. Maybe a bullet that would be more likely to kill someone more quickly would save lives and make our soldiers/marines more effective.

 

[mpmarty]

Battlefield effectiveness

is a matter of record, not opinion. I was fortunate enough to have trained on an M1, served with an M14 and seen my first M16 while still in service. I used to have an AR15 in .223 but got rid of it. My current and all time favorite "assault rifle" is an AK74 in 5.45X39 with a very large supply of SN7 Russion ammo which is known by the Afgan tribesmen as "the poison bullet". The AK is harder to clean than the AR but doesn't require cleaning nearly as often. The accuracy is right up there with the AR in stock military dress and I can hit gallon jugs consistantly at 300 yards. Any further than that and I will either leave or work in closer/wait for the target to come to me depending on whats going on. Yes, it's nice to have my long range rifle and "reach out and touch someone" at over a thousand yards, and with my 6.5x300 WWH (Weatherby Wright Hoyer) I can still do it, but do I see a likely need for this type of performance? No. Bottom line inside of 300 yards, you can kill with a 223 just as well as a 7.62 and maybe with follow-up shots closely spaced a little better. However, don't send me back to Korea where the bad guys wear mattresses for coats and expect me to do any serious damage with a 223, it won't happen.

Marty in Oregon

 

[HorseSoldier]

Do you think that these "field/combat" trials were rigged from the beginning so that it would appear that the good ol' NATO rounds were adequate for political purposes?

The trials were specific to USASOC, not the Big Army, and I don't think anyone had a political dog in the race. Fifth SFG(A) wanted something with longer legs than 5.56mm green tip. They tried 6.8mm, but got the same need addressed with Mk 262 5.56mm and semi-auto 7.62mm sniper rifles.

The money and the will was there for replacement of 5.56mm, but the benefits did not offset the liabilities the replacements brought to the table.

Many INDEPENDENT tests have shown that the 6.8 out performed the 5.56 in every area, and was even capable of duplicating 7.62 ballistics at ranges out to 600 meters.

Which independent studies managed to prove that you could get the same basic load of ammunition for the same weight?

Which ones demonstrated that in a pinch you could shoot Joe Grunt's 5.56mm ammo if your SOF peculiar logistics system broke down?

Now, do you think perhaps the Military wants to hold on to the 5.56 so they can save money for other programs (Stryker, Future Combat systems) and avoid the costs of logistics changes and the immense amount of money and effort they would need to exert to make new contracts, replace old guns, and find something that they can do with the trillions (literally trillions) of 5.56rounds in storage?

First, this is a misconception. Field/combat testing of 6.8mm and other alternate rounds was done for and by the special operations community, not for the conventional side of the house. Big Army did not have a vote in the process, and so the cost of giving every guy in every conventional unit a new 6.8mm upper or rifle was never part of the equation.

Second, that basic fact undoes the motives for conspiracy you suggest. SOF units have much smaller logistics requirements than the Big Army. SOF units already deploy with multiple upper receivers for many of their ARs so could, conceivably, swap back and forth between 5.56mm and 6.8mm as needed (if, for instance, supplies of 6.8mm got scarce). Etc.

Third, trillions of rounds in storage? I deal with a lot of 5.56mm ammunition on a daily sort of basis, and if there were trillions of rounds in storage, I'd have to wonder why these days I pretty much never see a M855 5.56mm round with a head stamp older than 2004. I'd think shooting up those trillions of rounds of old ammo would be a preferable inventory management strategy to shooting up the new and keeping the old corroding away in ammo bunkers . . .

Who knows, but all I know is that the 6.8 that I shot was FAR more accurate than the 5.56, didn't kick very much more, and did some serious damage to water jugs at ranges out to 300yds.

I'm pretty fond of the 6.8mm upper I own and shoot on my own time. But the rounds do weigh more, the added recoil means slower follow up shots or transition to other targets, etc. You get more thump from the heavier bullet, but it's not a free lunch, and it's not an unconditional improvement without downsides. If a shooter can do his job, 5.56mm does its job fine. If a shooter can't do his job, a .577 Tyrannosaur round won't save him.

But perhaps in a larger war, the overall larger amount of 5.56 rounds that flew through the air would cause more casualties than the 6.8 would to enemy forces. But the "shoot-to-wound" tactic that would have been effective during the cold war doesn't seem to be the best idea now that we are fighting terrorists who don't fight conventionally. Maybe a bullet that would be more likely to kill someone more quickly would save lives and make our soldiers/marines more effective.

"Shoot-to-wound" is an urban myth.

As is the claim that 5.56mm does not kill. Part of the reason why 6.8mm did not pan out is that lethality problems with 5.56mm exist more on the internet than they do in the real world -- even garden variety green tip does the job reliably.

 

[Number 6]

Do you think that these "field/combat" trials were rigged from the beginning so that it would appear that the good ol' NATO rounds were adequate for political purposes?

Many INDEPENDENT tests have shown that the 6.8 out performed the 5.56 in every area, and was even capable of duplicating 7.62 ballistics at ranges out to 600 meters.

Now, do you think perhaps the Military wants to hold on to the 5.56 so they can save money for other programs (Stryker, Future Combat systems) and avoid the costs of logistics changes and the immense amount of money and effort they would need to exert to make new contracts, replace old guns, and find something that they can do with the trillions (literally trillions) of 5.56rounds in storage?

Who knows, but all I know is that the 6.8 that I shot was FAR more accurate than the 5.56, didn't kick very much more, and did some serious damage to water jugs at ranges out to 300yds.

But perhaps in a larger war, the overall larger amount of 5.56 rounds that flew through the air would cause more casualties than the 6.8 would to enemy forces. But the "shoot-to-wound" tactic that would have been effective during the cold war doesn't seem to be the best idea now that we are fighting terrorists who don't fight conventionally. Maybe a bullet that would be more likely to kill someone more quickly would save lives and make our soldiers/marines more effective.

Shoot to wound is a myth, there was never any doctrine put into practice that stated that the goal was to wound the enemy rather than kill them.

As to the trials. First, the 6.8SPC round does outperform the 5.56, but like others have mentioned elsewhere at a cost of weight and recoil. That does not translate to the 5.56 not being adequate however. The 5.56 was found to be adequate to perform its intended role by the trials, the 6.8 being a better round is then irrelevant since the 5.56 does its job in a lighter package. The 50BMG outperforms the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51, does that mean those cartridges should be replaced by the 50BMG? Second, are you insinuating that the trials were fixed? What evidence to actually have to support that? Positing some conspiracy theory does little to actually support your point about the 6.8, since there is no way to verify your argument.

 

[grizzly5150]

I do think the military is going to replace the M16 very soon. I work at FN Mfg. and the SCAR is in the running to do just that. I carried the M16A2 while I was in the military and loved it. Never had any problems using it in Panamas jungle enviroment. The SCAR does have some advantages. You can change out barrels in the feild, it is supposed to be very reliable, and they are also making it where it can shoot the 7.62x39 round. The 5.56 round is still going to be used along with the 7.62. They are also making a sniper rifle SCAR.

 

[C-grunt]

I have seen a lot of people shot with the 5.56 and from my experience it leaves some nasty wounds. The average exit wounds were probably about half an inch wide. Many times if it hit the shoulder blade on the way out, the exit wound would be a few inches wide. The 5.56 shatters bone.

I dont know about you, but that doesnt sound like wounds that were meant to wound only.

 

[Metapotent]

The "shoot to wound" theory isn't COMPLETELY untrue. Because a stated goal of the development of the 5.56 was to cause more 'casualties' by allowing soldiers to carry more rounds and to fire more rounds.

Now, setting aside "I heard, he hear"...I have my own experience with the 5.56/.223 that causes me to think a 6.8 would be more effective.

I have a Bushmaster Predator AR chambered in .223 Wylde so that it fires 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem like 5.56-chambered rifles but with slightly tighter tolerances for more accuracy with factory rounds. I have shot m855 and SS109 milsurp rounds and both of which were fairly new batches, 2002-2004.

Last year I was using the 62gr SS109 when I got my brand new Bushmaster and took it Coyote hunting. I called a yote in to about 150 yds and for the first time in my Coyote hunting experience I got a wide open broadside shot when the Coyote turned to look at another Coyote that had heard the same calls. In about 5 seconds I sighted in and squeezed off a round that my buddy had said hit about 3 inches behind the shoulder of the coyote. But the coyote TOOK OFF RUNNING into the brush about 20 yards behind. We looked for the blood trail but it was almost nonexistent and after searching for about 2 hours we decided we could not find the wounded Coyote. We shot a few crows that day and returned back to camp go to bed and try again the next morning.

The next morning we set up on the other side of the brush from where the Coyote had escaped the day earlier and were surprised to see the coyote there lyind dead, about 600 yards from where it was shot the day earlier. In order for it to get there it had to climb numerous rocky hills and cross a small stream. Now that caused me to lose my faith in the 5.56. Now I now I would have faired better if I had used a slightly heavier .223 hunting load but this shows that the 5.56 just doesn't have much killing power when in FMJ Milspec loads.

On inspection of the dead Coyote, the round had entered right in the center of its vitals but had been deflected by the coyotes ribs and had exited in a one inch exit wound through the animals right hind quarters area.

When my buddy skinned the coyote we had a look at the damage and had come to find that the round didn't leave ANY fragments and had changed direction by about 60 degrees before even penetrating about 2 inches right of the rib it had struck.

Now, do you think if I shot this coyote in the same are with a 6.8 Rem SPC or a 6.5 Grendel that the situation would have been different? I think so.

Bottomline: If a 40lb coyote can survive long enough to run 600yds after being shot with this round, I think it is slightly less than adequate to deal with 130-190lb enemy combatants with religious zeal to boot.


P.S. Should I mention the time I shot a prairie dog with green-tipped m855 ammo to watch it jump up 3 feet then run 10 yds into its den to die in agony?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Last year I was using the 62gr SS109...When my buddy skinned the coyote we had a look at the damage and had come to find that the round didn't leave ANY fragments and had changed direction by about 60 degrees before even penetrating about 2 inches right of the rib it had struck.

Actually, one of the documented issues with M855/SS109 is that the more complex construction causes variation in fragmentation from lot to lot. You can lots of SS109 that behave like Wolf FMJ with almost no fragmentation even at 2700 fps and you can have lots of SS109 that show signs of fragmentation as low as 1900fps. Also note that at 150yds, you are in the borderline area of where M855/SS109 would reliably fragment out of a 20" barrel since you drop below the 2700fps necessary for reliable fragmentation of M193 and M855 at about 125yds.

Had you used the Mk262 load discussed above or any of the heavier match loads, you would have been more likely to see fragmentation because the same process that produces match accuracy (thin, consistent bullet jackets) also tends to produce consistent fragmentation in .223. The heavier loads also fragment at a lower velocity as well.

 

[possum]

I don't think they are going anywhere anytime soon. there are just to many being sold, and they are comming out with new calibers, new mods everything you could image in any caliber to boot. and all kinds of highspeed stuff, they aren't going anywhere especially with the amount that are sold on yearly basis, everybody wants one, well almost, there would probally me more ownership of the ar-15 but they are a little costly for some! another great selling factor for them is the fact that the military uses them, and there are an awful lot of people out there that think because they have highspeed equipment, and it is "military" that they are highspeed themselves.
Or maybe it is that they are a symbol of freedom!

 

[Metapotent]

Bartholomew Roberts said:

Actually, one of the documented issues with M855/SS109 is that the more complex construction causes variation in fragmentation from lot to lot. You can lots of SS109 that behave like Wolf FMJ with almost no fragmentation even at 2700 fps and you can have lots of SS109 that show signs of fragmentation as low as 1900fps. Also note that at 150yds, you are in the borderline area of where M855/SS109 would reliably fragment out of a 20" barrel since you drop below the 2700fps necessary for reliable fragmentation of M193 and M855 at about 125yds.

Had you used the Mk262 load discussed above or any of the heavier match loads, you would have been more likely to see fragmentation because the same process that produces match accuracy (thin, consistent bullet jackets) also tends to produce consistent fragmentation in .223. The heavier loads also fragment at a lower velocity as well.

Well on my AR Predator I' had it rechambered for .223 wylde rather than 5.56 NATO (even though they are compatible) and rebarreled right after I bought it, it has a 24 inch barrel. Now if I do my math correctly that would be about 2900 fps at 150yds so it should have fragmented according to the advocates of the round.

But the thing is, its supposed to fragment in soft tissue, this bullet hit the coyote's rib and still didn't fragment but instead just ricocheted and missed the vitals that were directly behind the point of impact. Kind of strange to me and also kind of disappointing considering my previous level of faith in the accuracy and power of the round.

Maybe I should have taken used a headshot to save myself the grief. But nonetheless a vitals-shot through the front of the coyote with my .243 or my AR in .223 when using heavier hunting rounds has never disappointed and I'm sure if I used by buddies M4 with the Barret M468 6.8mm upper it wouldn't have happened either.

People base the wounding power of the 5.56 on the damage it does when it fragments, citing what it does to ballistics gel and humans at close range. I don't question its short range wounding power but past 150 yds its not reliable enough to incapacitate, downright KILL. It is incredibly accurate out to 300 yds (and farther) but it is highly unlikely to kill someone at medium ranges since it turns into just a slightly heavier .22lr and decelerates to only a slightly higher velocity.

Now pretend I was a Soldier or Marine in Iraq and that Coyote was an armed insurgent. What if I shot that insurgent (who would probably weigh 4 times as much as the coyote) and he took cover only to later shoot and and possibly wound/kill me and my buddies. Or recovered long enough to shoot back immediately and wound or kill me. Maybe it would have been better if I had been armed with something a little more powerful. Don't you think?

Now I believe in all honesty that the 5.56 is more effective in a conventional war against a conventional foe, it has proven itself to be excellent in this area. But when was the last time that we fought a conventional battle in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many times since then have our troops been faced against religious zealots who WANT to die and want to kill as many of out troops in the process.

I think a round with more punch is necessary because it is very rare that US forces are in a position where they can use their superior training and maneuver skills to use the 5.56 fire supremacy to their benefit.

 

[GoRon]

Last year I was using the 62gr SS109 when I got my brand new Bushmaster and took it Coyote hunting

If we are buying it (5.56 milsurp ammo), doesn't that mean it is seconds or thirds and has been rejected for use in the field by the troops?

 

[Jeff White]

You cannot make ANY correlation between hunting and combat...

Rant mode on:

Human beings are not coyotes, whitetail deer, javelina or any other game animal. They are human beings and as such have brains and emotions. There can be no correlation between how any animal reacts to being shot and a human being being shot. You can't even state that a shot in the same place with the same weight bullet travelling at the exact same velocity will have the same effect on two different human beings much less 10 of them.

Wild animals don't get psyched up on anything. They don't grow up watching hundreds or thousands of depictions of them being shot in the entertainment industry that teaches them how they are supposed to react when they are shot.

Unless you wish to pack a 90mm recoiless rifle around, you won't be carrying anything that has a reasonable expectation of a one round kill. Forget it. It doesn't exist. All you have to do is read a little of the volumes of history of armed conflict since the advent of the firearm to understand this. History is full of examples of people who failed to stop after being hit with multiple rounds of .75 ball out of smoothbore muskets to the so called full power cartridges fielded by both sides in WWII.

5.56x45 is an adequate round. All of the major armies in the world agree on that. Are there better ones? Probably....Will we see a new caliber in our lifetime? Most likely not. 5.56x45 is doing the job it's designed to do. Change would take money away from programs we need more then a new rifle or new caliber. The old adage of if it's not broke, don't fix it applies here....Regardless of what all the internet gun board military experts think..Rant mode off.

Jeff

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Now if I do my math correctly that would be about 2900 fps at 150yds so it should have fragmented according to the advocates of the round.

Depends on what particular lot of SS109 it was - remember the part about the more complex construction of the round caused by the penetrator insert?

I think a round with more punch is necessary because it is very rare that US forces are in a position where they can use their superior training and maneuver skills to use the 5.56 fire supremacy to their benefit.

One of the summaries of Marine experiences from the 2003 invasion of Iraq reported that the majority of the combat occured at distances of closer than 30yds and shots beyond 100yds were rare. Even dedicated snipers rarely engaged targets beyond 300yds.

There is no argument that 7.62x51 or 6.8SPC is more effective in terms of terminal performance. The question is whether they are so much more effective that they are worth the other problems they bring to the table. At the ranges where most combat occurs, the 5.56mm will do the job just fine.

The same Marine report referenced earlier had the following to say about 5.56mm lethality:

5.56mm vs. 7.62 Lethality ~ 5.56mm definitely answered the mail and as long as the shots were in the head or chest

 

[Eightball]

Not to "hijack" the thread, but wasn't it originally debating the design of the AR, not the round the AR uses?

Weather or not the 6.8 or 7.62xanything round is used, the AR design is still the design--just as the FAMAS is the FAMAS design, or the Sig 550 is it's own design--the ammo was not the question, nor was "what calibre should my AR be chambered for?", it was debating about the design in question.

Just checking.

 

[444]

I guess this is drifting off-topic but I can't resist a couple comments.

First of all, please don't hunt with military ammo. Military ammo has totally different design parameters than hunting ammo. You can easily buy any number of bullets for .223 that will violently fragment or expand. This is pretty common knowlege. If you decided to take your 1903 Springfield out deer hunting I would hope you would use jacketed softpoints instead of military ball. Same thing goes for the 5.56. Think of all the things that military ball ammo has to do. Violent fragmentation would be a liability because it would severely limit penetration. Military ammmo needs to penetrate. They are shooting at vehicles, enemy with body armor and helmets etc. Hunting ammo doesn't have to worry about all that.

Second, the assumption is made that when shooting a coyote, the 6.8 round would have done a better job however this is based on nothing but speculation. You just assume this to be true. If the 6.8 was an actual military rifle cartridge and IF "they" made a standard issue military ball cartridge for it, and if you actually shot a coyote with it at 150 yards, who knows what would have happened ?

"There is no argument that 7.62x51 or 6.8SPC is more effective in terms of terminal performance. "
I am not completely sure about that. Again, using military ball ammo. At longish range, I have no argument. At carbine ranges, I might argue that.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I am not completely sure about that. Again, using military ball ammo. At longish range, I have no argument. At carbine ranges, I might argue that

Depends on whose military ball ammo you are using as well - some 7.62 ball also shows similar fragmentation; but as a generalization 7.62 has more potential in terminal performance than 5.56.

 

[buzz_knox]

The government would certainly get a better price in quantity. So far, reliability reports seem overly positive from what I have read, with the guns being much more resistant to dirt and debris that their direct impingement counterparts - albeit at the cost of slightly more complexity.

Depends on who you talk to. Some of the piston systems seem to work, others have issues (including the 416 which seems to still have some bugs). But the real issue is maintenance and environment. A lot of the situations where the AR craps out currently (extremely dirty environments) have been known to cause issues with AKs, FALs, and every other system as well, as evidenced by the Israeli tests in the '70s.

 

[Lonestar]

Internally it will eventually change. Either a caliber change or slight changes to make it more reliable (something other than gas porting through direct impingement). The general shape of the M4 (the M-16 being too long) will be around for years to come.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Note: "AR-15" used to refer to both actual AR-15s and military M-16 to avoid having to say "the civilian AR-15 and/or the military M-16" over and over.



I voted for the grandchildren option. Everyone has been debating the merits of 5.56 vs. 7.62 and the AR-15/M-16 design vs. everything else, but are there any realistic contenders? I just read a special magazine issue on "Black Rifles" a few weeks back. FALs, M1As, ARs, that Robinson M96 rifle, and others. Some of them I hadn't even heard of before. And none of them seemed like real serious contenders to replace the AR-15.

Like several people have said, the AR-15 in 5.56 works. Maybe an AK-based action in a FAL rifle chambered in .50 BMG would have better one shot stopping power at 1000 yards. But the bottom line is the AR-15 works. It kills people. Like Jeff White said, some people just aren't going to go down with one shot, no matter what you shoot them with. If someone needs to be shot again, shoot them again.

With the AR-15 you have more ammo, which can be used to shoot more people or to provide extra cover fire. Everyone says "Oh, but if it takes three shots of 5.56 to put someone down, how does carrying three times as many rounds REALLY help you?" Shot for shot, maybe it doesn't. But if you have to lay down lots of cover fire or deal with many enemies, it would probably be nicer to have a basic load of 210 rounds (7 30-round mags, what most soldiers I know carry) instead of 140 rounds. And that's a basic load. I can easily fit two six mag pouches on my IBA and carry 360 rounds while still having room for my NODs, med kit, and other pouches.


As has already been said, there is nothing out there that really offers a vast improvement over the current AR-15 design. Maybe a piston upper would be MORE reliable, or a 6.8 caliber change would be MORE lethal, but the current design has been doing its job just fine. Eventually, something will come along to replace the AR-15. Maybe that will be caseless ammo or lasers or some new super duper lethal cartridge. But I doubt any of the current contenders will replace it.






Two closing thoughts. One, has anyone really replaced the AR-15? Sure, some countries, esp poorer ones and former Communist countries use AK varients. But most of them always have. Looking at the U.S. SOF community, S.W.A.T teams, and many of the other armies and SOF communities around the world, many of them use the AR-15. And many of them, police S.W.A.T teams in particular, are not constrained by U.S. military weapons choices.

Second, as much as people grip about direct gas operation, the AR-15 isn't that hard to clean. Pop out the rear take down pin, pull the bolt carrier out, take it apart, wipe it down, wipe out the upper receiver, put it back together, and lube it. Something you can down in 10 minutes w/ a rag. Sure you won't be able to eat off it. And you sure won't be able to get your DS to ok it w/o some serious work on your star chamber (esp if he has a small pinkie, darn you DS Chapelle!). But it will function. And like buzz_knox said, most of the environments that will cause the AR-15 to choke will cause everything else to choke too.

My two cents, I guess...

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Winchester 1892 and 1894, and Marlin 336 (based on
Marlin 1893) are still around. ARs will probably be around
in 2060 in one form or another.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Well...I don't like to think of the AR and the 5.56 as separate.

In reality, they are a system. They are meant for one another.

You can also add a 3rd piece to this pie - select fire. Auto or 3rd burst.

Here's another way to look at it. If the military wasn't looking for a lightweight package - would they have chosen the 5.56? If the military didn't want fullauto or 3 round burst, would they have chosen the 5.56?

5.56 is first and foremost a solution to the following problems:

Weight of ammunition.
Quantity of ammunition.
Recoil.

5.56 is lighter, so it's easier to carry. It is also smaller and lighter, so you can carry MORE of it. It also doesn't recoil like .308, so you can shoot it easier, novices can be more accurate with it, and you can full-auto fire it without hitting the sky by the 3rd round.

I don't think the 5.56's lethality over .30cals was the #1 criteria for which it was chosen.


Now to rifle. The military would not choose a smaller cartridge, with less recoil, and less weight only to issue a 10lb rifle. So, designs that use lots of steel (M14) and wood are OUT. Aluminum is our new friend. To further reduce weight, the design of the AR eliminates entire groups of parts - aka the piston. Synthetic furniture, lesser and smaller parts, aluminum = 6 to 6.5lbs rifle.

Since that orignal doctrine and thinking, the AR has been revised and weight has gone up. Although, no where near as bad as as the weight gains seen in the commercial market (HBARs and other stuff). I find it silly that people build 10lb or more AR "carbines"...all that just to shoot the .223. If I'm going to lug around that weight, I'm going for .308.

Why full auto? Perhaps the military abandoned the whole "rifleman/marksman" theory of combat. Instead, wants to issue bullet spraying sticks to soldiers because dumping a half-magazine at the enemies position dramatically increases hit probability. That doesn't mean they don't teach marksmanship. Fullauto + marksmanship = more lethal system. At least in theory.


There's trade offs and reasons for why things are like they are. The military's doctrine at the time of the M16's development had a certain set of goals or criteria or specs. It's like wondering why scout rifles have to look or be the way they are - because Cooper set the requirements. Same thing.


Back to the "system" point I'm trying to make. When I step back and take a look at the arms we like to buy and use...I always say to myself that while they are superior to commercial-only semi-automatics, these rifles, in semi-automatic only, are not truly ideal. Now, you might say "duh"...but really. What makes them better? Usually only reliability, magazine capacity and ergonomics. Not firepower. The Mini-14 has the same firepower as any civvie AR.


If you can just pull the trigger one time and get one bullet - why use a 5.56, or a 7.62x39 or a 5.45? These, and the popular rifles that shoot them, were meant first and foremost with select fire in mind. Part of their effectiveness equation is in volume fire. Yeah, I know that even in semi-automatic, an AR is faster to shoot than an M1A...but the difference isn't as big as full auto vs. semi. If you can't do full auto, then your entire shooter-strategy must change. You must then switch to the old doctrine of well-aimed, well placed shots. I can't saturate my targets position with lead. Not talking about spraying randomly, but semi-accurate spraying. Sure, I can rapid fire my semi-auto with pretty good accuracy. That sure beats a bolt action - but burst/auto wins. If it didn't, no one would be using it. Unless you got Class3, that AK or AR is not that much better than an M1A, except you've got a weaker cartridge.

If you're counting on less hits, or one hit - wouldn't you want something that will be a quicker fight stopper? I know, I know..like others have said in this thread - everything in history has failed at one time or another to produce a stop -- however, reason suggests that bigger does more damage and over the whole, results in a higher frequency of quicker fight stopping. As a semi-auto shooter, one must weight increased recoil which equates to slower follow up shots of a more powerful cartridge vs. lower recoil with quicker follup shots but of a weaker cartridge.


From a cartridge perspective, that's what it comes down to. I'm a big fan of the 5.56 and the AR. But the main attraction is the ligher weight system while remaining "good enough" in other aspects. Force me to to 12lbs, and I want an M1A instead.

 

[buzz_knox]

From a cartridge perspective, that's what it comes down to. I'm a big fan of the 5.56 and the AR. But the main attraction is the ligher weight system while remaining "good enough" in other aspects. Force me to to 12lbs, and I want an M1A instead.

With an AR, you get to the higher weights by adding on equipment (lights, optics, rails, etc). To the extent those items are necessary/beneficial (optics and lights are a must in a social AR, and rails tend to go along with them), you 'll need them on an M1A. Hence, the SOCOM 16, and Sage modified M14s and their Fulton Armory/Rock counterparts. That kicks the weight up around 16 lbs.

 

[C-grunt]

Many people will tell you that the 5.56 does not work good enough. If you ask a soldier or marine who has been there and done that, they will tell you that it does indeed work. Yes it is true that 7.62 is more powerfull, but thats not the point. Has anyone here ever took a 5.56 to the chest? I know plenty of bad guys who have, but they cant make it here to tell you how weak it is.

Any practical rifle round will fail to incapacitate at one point or another. One of our snipers shot a insurgent spotter with a 7.62 at about 250-300 yards. The round went through his arm, entered the lower rib cage, came out the other side, and went through his other arm (side profile shot at night). Not only did this man live (thanks to our medics) but he was able to walk about 50 feet before he even fell down.

 

[richardschennberg]

The true test of 6.8SPC will happen when several manufacturers design military rifles optimized for this cartridge. It will have to be better than the M-16/M4 to be considered, so I would expect this to be 10 to 20 years from now.
Richard
Schennberg.com

 

[whofan]

These gas piston uppers... this threat is my first encounter with hearing about these. Isn't that what the Hk 416 utilizes? Can you switch any AR-15 to this system? How reliable is it?

I have a LWRC piston carbine. I can say this. The bolt/carrier group does not get hot, even in extened sessions. It also stays much cleaner. The carbon is easy to wipe off. The bolt does not get carbon baked on.

The piston system does not feel any heavier than a gas impingement weapon.

Is it more reliable? Only time will tell.