5.56 AR guys…what are your long term plans now that the military is in the (longish) process of switching away from it?

[jmr40]

I wouldn't be surprised to see the new 6.8 round fail and the military go back to the 5.56 as the primary weapon. The military THOUGHT they had the perfect combo in the 308 and M14 and on paper it looked good. But in use it proved to have too much recoil and troops couldn't carry enough ammo. I think they will find the same negatives with the new 6.8 round. Not to mention the extremely high pressures it generates. I've got to wonder about rifles holding up to those pressures.

5.56 isn't perfect. It underperforms at long ranges but does just fine up close where most of the small arms fighting happens. They say the generals are always planning how to win the last war. The 5.56 didn't perform as well as hoped at some of the long ranges encountered in Afghanistan so they asked for a rifle to meet those needs. The next war may be much different.

I actually like the philosophy used in WW-2. In each squad the Garand was the main rifle. But there were also scoped bolt rifles, M1 carbines, 45ACP sub-machine guns, BAR's, and M1917 machine guns. They had a variety of weapons suited for different roles. And if they could keep units supplied with different ammo with the logistics of 80 years ago, we can do it today.

 

[bluejeans]

I use 556 not because of any performance aspect but because it’s availability and bulk pricing.. if any other mediocre small rifle round becomes cheaper and readily available, sure, I’d happily change.. but I don’t see that as likely to be the case any time soon. Especially if the military starts dumping their stockpiles of 556 then there a possibility of plentiful milsurp ammo (not that I expect that.)

 

[Varminterror]

I think it is really quite clear that the 6.8 is not intended to be a broad replacement of the 5.56. As noted, modern skirmishing is done at short ranges such the 5.56 is in its element, however the desired squad auto weapon performance at longer ranges was desired to be improved. The solicitation made broad promises to help secure acceptance, and the M4 replacement has fizzled after award - with only the LMG replacements moving forward… in essence, it replaced a specialty application of the 5.56 as an underperforming LMG, and is aiming to replace the 308win MG’s…

 

[edwardware]

The US military moved away from .30-06 around the time my father was born. . . and I'm still shooting US surplus .30-06 ammo in my US surplus M1 Garand. . . I have a long time to watch and plan.

 

[Walkalong]

Doesn't matter what the military does with choices of weapons or calibers, my use of the AR isn't likely to change.

 

[Flat Rock]

I don't see the US moving away from 5.56mm for a number of reasons:
NATO standardization
Legacy weapon systems
stockpile considerations
cost

Remember that the XM-7/8 are experimental weapons, and are in no way meant to replace the M4

 

[Flat Rock]

The military ditched the 30-06 almost 70 years ago, and the 308 60 years ago… how quickly has the civilian sporting arms market abandoned those cartridges?

If the NEXT cartridge becomes 1) available at higher availability and lower cost than 223/5.56, 2) can be reloaded with higher availability and lower cost, AND 3) the firearm availability becomes more available, lower cost, and equally or more adaptable than the market of 223/5.56 rifles, then there will be motivation for civilian TRANSITION AND REPLACEMENT of the AR-15 and 223/5.56 at least at the broadest market scale. But there also remain a large market volume of non-5.56, non-AR, AND non-5.56 + AR civilian sporting arms which survive in market; folks buying 223rem heavy barreled bolt action rifles for casual target shooting or Varmint hunting only at best have tertiary motive connected to the military deployment of 5.56, and those primary and secondary motives aren’t going anywhere. The guy building an AR-15 in 6 ARC for 1,000 yard plinking isn’t primarily motivated by military deployment of M4’s in 5.56.

In Asian countries, potatoes, wheat, and corn are scarce and rice is prevalent, so the staple meals tend to be rice based, while in the US, potatoes, wheat and corn as the primary carbohydrates included in most meals are breads, pastas, potatoes, and corn starches… in their respective countries/continents/sub-continents, the cheap, available, and versatile option prevails. It will take a lot more than limited deployment of a more expensive firearm and cartridge to convert Asia from rice to mashed potatoes…

Um.... the USA still uses 7.62 NATO (.308) and a LOT of it across multiple weapon systems.

 

[daniel craig]

When the US military transitioned away from .30-06, did the cartridge become obsolete and die off?

No.

When the US military transitioned away from .45Auto, did the cartridge become obsolete and die off?

No.

When Russian/Chinese military transitioned away from 7.62x39, did the cartridge become obsolete and die off?

No.

Same will happen if/when the US military transitions away from 5.56 ... Civilian caliber of .223 will continue on as one of most popular rifle cartridges, like 7.62x39.

Excellent point/s

 

[General Geoff]

I expect 5.56 will continue to be the most popular semi auto rifle caliber in the US for the next 40 years minimum, so no I won't be divesting myself of it

 

[C-grunt]

I think it is really quite clear that the 6.8 is not intended to be a broad replacement of the 5.56. As noted, modern skirmishing is done at short ranges such the 5.56 is in its element, however the desired squad auto weapon performance at longer ranges was desired to be improved. The solicitation made broad promises to help secure acceptance, and the M4 replacement has fizzled after award - with only the LMG replacements moving forward… in essence, it replaced a specialty application of the 5.56 as an underperforming LMG, and is aiming to replace the 308win MG’s…

I've said since the beginning that the new LMG has some real potential. Sig also makes it in 7.62 NATO. My theory is the rifle will get dropped (or relegated to specialty use) and the LMG goes forward but in 7.62.

 

[Varminterror]

Um.... the USA still uses 7.62 NATO (.308) and a LOT of it across multiple weapon systems.

View attachment 1222916

Um… this is another bit of non-evidence like the sabot thread where you've missed the point - digging into the obscure as evidence for the broad trend isn't evidence to support the broad trend…

308win has not been the Army infantry/standard issue rifle since the adoption of the M16 to replace the M14.

 

[Flat Rock]

The military ditched the 30-06 almost 70 years ago, and the 308 60 years ago… how quickly has the civilian sporting arms market abandoned those cartridges?

If the NEXT cartridge becomes 1) available at higher availability and lower cost than 223/5.56, 2) can be reloaded with higher availability and lower cost, AND 3) the firearm availability becomes more available, lower cost, and equally or more adaptable than the market of 223/5.56 rifles, then there will be motivation for civilian TRANSITION AND REPLACEMENT of the AR-15 and 223/5.56 at least at the broadest market scale. But there also remain a large market volume of non-5.56, non-AR, AND non-5.56 + AR civilian sporting arms which survive in market; folks buying 223rem heavy barreled bolt action rifles for casual target shooting or Varmint hunting only at best have tertiary motive connected to the military deployment of 5.56, and those primary and secondary motives aren’t going anywhere. The guy building an AR-15 in 6 ARC for 1,000 yard plinking isn’t primarily motivated by military deployment of M4’s in 5.56.

In Asian countries, potatoes, wheat, and corn are scarce and rice is prevalent, so the staple meals tend to be rice based, while in the US, potatoes, wheat and corn as the primary carbohydrates included in most meals are breads, pastas, potatoes, and corn starches… in their respective countries/continents/sub-continents, the cheap, available, and versatile option prevails. It will take a lot more than limited deployment of a more expensive firearm and cartridge to convert Asia from rice to mashed potatoes…

Your claim that the military “ditched” the “308” (7.62 NATO) is ridiculous
The round is used In many platforms by the USA

 

[Mk-211]

Ugh, now I need an AR10 type of lower for .277 Fury, 6.5 manbun, 7.62x51... calgon, take me away!

 

[tmd16556]

I wouldn’t sell my 223s yet. I suspect the 6.8 is going to be more like the 6mm Lee Navy than the 30-06. Maybe a replacement for 7.62 NATO in crew-served and designated marksman weapon at best.

There’s a good reason the 7.62x51 has been obsolete as an infantry rifle cartridge for over a half century. You can carry a lot more little bullets that are good enough than big ones that are too good.

I make the same calculation in the much lower stakes world of dove hunting. If I’m going to be able to drive to my stand, I’ll shoot a heavy 12 gauge with a 30” barrel and 1 1/4 oz loads. If I have to hike 3/4 mile into the field, I take a light 20 gauge. Even with 1 oz loads, I get a bonus shell for every 4 carried, plus less volume. I lose out on marginal long-range shots, but formost of the real action, it’s just as good.

I also haven’t heard anyone lamenting the 5.45x39 in Ukraine. Both sides are using a lot of it. It’s the 155/152 mm stuff that makes a difference there.

 

[Glockpride]

The US mil should adopt the 6.5 Grendel if they want an AR-15 sized platform and a 6.5 Creedmoor for a large frame format. Both are already commercially available, don’t have the pressure issues like the .277 and are perfectly fine for further distances than 5.56.

 

[Varminterror]

Your claim that the military “ditched” the “308” (7.62 NATO) is ridiculous
The round is used In many platforms by the USA

Do you believe civilian AR-10/LFAR sales, or bolt action 308 Winchester sales are driven by the military LMG utility of 7.62?

Implied in my first is the military ditched the 308/7.62 “as the main infantry rifle” 60 years ago.

 

[Flat Rock]

Do you believe civilian AR-10/LFAR sales, or bolt action 308 Winchester sales are driven by the military LMG utility of 7.62?

Implied in my first is the military ditched the 308/7.62 “as the main infantry rifle” 60 years ago.

M-21
M-24
M-14
M-14 DMR
M-14 EBR
SR-25
M-110
M-40 (all variants)
M-240B
M-240L
Mk-48
Miniguns in all their glorious manifestations
Yeah looks like “.308” is dead

 

[Rexster]

I am a “5.56 AR guy” because it was what I used as a police patrol rifle, once upon a time. There is no military connection, in my case. The military rifle that I liked was the M1 Garand, because that was what my father was issued, during the Cold War. My cousin had not been impressed by the M16, while fighting in Vietnam. My acquisition of an AR15 was simply because I worked for a PD that suddenly decided to start a patrol rifle program, shortly after the events of September 11th, 2001. Now retired, I see no reason to change rifle systems.

 

[Flat Rock]

Do you believe civilian AR-10/LFAR sales, or bolt action 308 Winchester sales are driven by the military LMG utility of 7.62?

Implied in my first is the military ditched the 308/7.62 “as the main infantry rifle” 60 years ago.

Do you believe civilian AR-10/LFAR sales, or bolt action 308 Winchester sales are driven by the military LMG utility of 7.62?

Implied in my first is the military ditched the 308/7.62 “as the main infantry rifle” 60 years ago.

 

[.455_Hunter]

So far, the 6.8 platforms are just more toys in the SOCOM weapons locker. If somebody like 1ID or even the 82nd gets a MTOE bulk issue, then let's talk again.

 

[Old Dog]

The OP's thesis apparently is that those of us AR/5.56mm and .223 enthusiasts indulge in the platform and the calibers simply because of the almost 60 years of military use is... wrong. As though we will gravitate to whatever new caliber and platform the military transitions to is... also wrong.

The AR platform with its myriad variants and the 5.56mm and .223 caliber are widely available (and will continue to be so), simply fun, practical, inexpensive, in widespread use (not likely to change anytime soon) and remains a highly effective weapons system in a highly effective caliber.

No disrespect intended toward the OP, but as a thread topic: definite non-starter.

 

[Varminterror]

As though we will gravitate to whatever new caliber and platform the military transitions to is... also wrong.

I think there is very strong evidence that military (and LEO) utility of cartridges has very strong influence on civilian adoption. And by “I think,” I’m saying, “I know, because it is painfully clear,” and by “evidence,” I’m referring to the broad civilian adoption and market permeation of all US military issued cartridges over the last century. There’s been an entire market of surplus rifles and ammo, and we can look at the staying power of the 1911, 303, 30-06, 308, 9mm 45, 40s&w, 38spcl, Garands, m14/M1a’s, hell, even the Ruger Mini-14/30, 7.62x39, 300blk, 338lap, 50BMG, 300wm, 30 carbine, countless AR-15, AR-10/LFAR, and bolt action clones, and the topic of the thread, the 223/5.56. Glock pistols, the market trend towards the new Sig’s, the market trend cooling on 40 S&W… Civilian deployment of 6.8 Spc, now 6 ARC, and 277 Fury,

So there is clear evidence that civilian adoption of cartridges and firearms DOES follow military adoption EXTREMELY closely.

But it IS apt to say that survival in civilian market is not wholly dependent upon military utilization. We have seen sustained retention in civilian market for decades after military decommissioning of various gear. But stuff that deserves survival will survive, and 223/5.56 has proven it deserves survival.

 

[irishlad]

But stuff that deserves survival will survive, and 223/5.56 has proven it deserves survival.

This^^^^^^^

 

[MarshallDodge]

Interesting thread. With millions of rifles and pistols chambered in 223/5.56, the cartridge has very little chance of dying. For me, it will be more economical to load and shoot compared to 6.8, so I don't see a reason to change.

The US military adopted the Beretta 92(9mm) in 1985, yet I picked up about 200 empty 45ACP cases at the range yesterday, that others had left behind.

I'm sure thousands of 30-06 rifles are still sold every year, and the caliber remains in the top 10 of popular rifle calibers.

 

[CapnMac]

I actually like the philosophy used in WW-2. In each squad the Garand was the main rifle. But there were also scoped bolt rifles, M1 carbines, 45ACP sub-machine guns, BAR's, and M1917 machine guns. They had a variety of weapons suited for different roles. And if they could keep units supplied with different ammo with the logistics of 80 years ago, we can do it today.

It's a bit deceptive, after the fact. In the 30s there was a real military split between those nations that had a "rifle caliber" and an "MG caliber," and those that did not. The US decided to not have a separate caliber (and for entire monographs & dissertations of reasons).

Lost in that is that there was no logistical benefit in actual practice in using the one ammo. MG ammo was belted, BAR ammo was loaded into magazines, by 1940 rifle ammo was in bandoliers, either in five round stripper clips or in en bloc clips of eight. Typically, the only place were single rounds might be "loose loaded" was at Brigade or Division, to then be sent forwards to the various Regiments as "complete" issue of ammo.

BAR magazines were not shipped empty (and were only vaguely tabled as "expendable") so, an Infantry squad would be under some duress if they were single-loading empty BAR mags. The cal..30 MGs at Company and Battalion level were not single loading belts, unless heavily pressed, and it was a slow and tedious process at best.

Our present logistics maintains several "streams" of ammo to combat units. Rifle ammo comes forward as bandoliers of ammo on stripper clips, and loose boxes of empty, disposable rifle mags. SAW ammo come forward belted, then into cardboard carriers for the web gear worn by the SAW gunner (and, potentially, his AG, if tabled that way). MG ammo is sent up belted in cans and/or crates. IF you know the TOE of a unit, you know the proportions of the weapons one to another, the unit will provide you with use rate guidelines, and that's how you load the trucks or the slung loads for the helos.

the USA still uses 7.62 NATO (.308) and a LOT of it across multiple weapon systems.

An absolute blithering array of coaxial and vehicle mounts in use that show no real benefit from the caliber change.

Sig also makes it in 7.62 NATO. My theory is the rifle will get dropped (or relegated to specialty use) and the LMG goes forward but in 7.62.

Only logical as it's just a barrel and boltface change to go from 6.8x51 to 7.62x51 (and, the 6.8 is really a 7mm but they called it a 6.8 to sound kewl)
Whether the notion of a Squad weapon in 7.62nato winds up better than one in 7.62nato will probably come down to how many rounds the Squad is expected to carry, and the larger caliber halves that.