The problem is that most people don't realize that any military rifle is a compromise. The soldier wants a short, light rifle with a huge magazine, total reliability, perfect accturacy, 100% lethality and the ability to shoot as far as he can see.
A 308 weapon means more range and potentially more killiung power, at the cost of weight and controllability. A 5.56 sacrifices range for weight and controllability. Which one is right?
If you look at actual combat analysis, particularly Hitchman's 'Operational requirements for an infantry hand weapon', based on the study of 2 million casualty reports, as well as extensive data from WWII and Korea, it turns out that virtually everything we think we know about infantry rifle combat is wrong.
90% of all infantry fire occurs at 300 yards or less, 70% at less than 100 yards. The effectiveness of infantry fire at 500 yards is virtually zero. This has nothing to do with the weapon or the shooting ability of the soldier. At these ranges the use of camouflage and intervening terrain make it extremely difficult for the soldier to see the enemy. a soldier can't shoot what he can't see.
Finally, analysis of enemy caualties in Vietnam showed that the 5.56x45mm was 11% more lethal than the 7.,62x51mm. This has everything to do with bullet construction and nothing to do with energy. Both the M80 ball round and even the M43 7.62x39 bullet tend to pass through the target doing less injury than the M193 5.56x45, which has a tebndency to fracture into submissiles and not exit.
Obviously, there have been changes in ammunition since then, and there have been justifiable criticisms of the M4 paired with the M855 round leading to reduced effective range due to the loss of velocity of the round. 5.56x45 needs about 2600 fps velocity to reliably fragment.
The spec for M855 is 3000 fps from a 20 inch bbl, which is more like 2770 for a 14.5 inch M4 barrel, which means that within 50 yards, the round is already under the magic 2600 fps. The M193 is still above fragmentation velocity from an M4 out at 150 yards. Fired from a 20 inch M16, the M193 will still be above fragmentation velocity out to over 225 yards.
If you consider that the average range for rifle combat is 75 yards, it all makes sense.
We could adopt an intermediate round, yet again trading something for something else. There's no guarantee that the ball ammunition used with 6.5 or 6.8 would be any more effective than the bullet currently in service.
Finally, in the grand sheme of things, infantry rifles have very little impact on the battle. They matter a lot to the infantryman, but rarely have any impact on the outcome of wars. All the serious killing is done by other weapons.
A 308 weapon means more range and potentially more killiung power, at the cost of weight and controllability. A 5.56 sacrifices range for weight and controllability. Which one is right?
If you look at actual combat analysis, particularly Hitchman's 'Operational requirements for an infantry hand weapon', based on the study of 2 million casualty reports, as well as extensive data from WWII and Korea, it turns out that virtually everything we think we know about infantry rifle combat is wrong.
90% of all infantry fire occurs at 300 yards or less, 70% at less than 100 yards. The effectiveness of infantry fire at 500 yards is virtually zero. This has nothing to do with the weapon or the shooting ability of the soldier. At these ranges the use of camouflage and intervening terrain make it extremely difficult for the soldier to see the enemy. a soldier can't shoot what he can't see.
Finally, analysis of enemy caualties in Vietnam showed that the 5.56x45mm was 11% more lethal than the 7.,62x51mm. This has everything to do with bullet construction and nothing to do with energy. Both the M80 ball round and even the M43 7.62x39 bullet tend to pass through the target doing less injury than the M193 5.56x45, which has a tebndency to fracture into submissiles and not exit.
Obviously, there have been changes in ammunition since then, and there have been justifiable criticisms of the M4 paired with the M855 round leading to reduced effective range due to the loss of velocity of the round. 5.56x45 needs about 2600 fps velocity to reliably fragment.
The spec for M855 is 3000 fps from a 20 inch bbl, which is more like 2770 for a 14.5 inch M4 barrel, which means that within 50 yards, the round is already under the magic 2600 fps. The M193 is still above fragmentation velocity from an M4 out at 150 yards. Fired from a 20 inch M16, the M193 will still be above fragmentation velocity out to over 225 yards.
If you consider that the average range for rifle combat is 75 yards, it all makes sense.
We could adopt an intermediate round, yet again trading something for something else. There's no guarantee that the ball ammunition used with 6.5 or 6.8 would be any more effective than the bullet currently in service.
Finally, in the grand sheme of things, infantry rifles have very little impact on the battle. They matter a lot to the infantryman, but rarely have any impact on the outcome of wars. All the serious killing is done by other weapons.
