"Effective Range"

Status
Not open for further replies.

MTMilitiaman

Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
3,215
Location
Columbia Falls, Montana
The effective point target range of the M16A4 service rifle with M855 is listed as 550 yards, IIRC. This number is derived from the round's ability to penetrate a standard 1980s-issue Soviet helmet and the computed hit percentages of average infantrymen. In the past, the military has used 1/2" pine boards. This all results in numbers that are abstract and ambiguous, difficult to apply in the real world and often laughably optimistic. A 5.56mm rifle round is certainly capable of poking a potentially lethal hole in someone from 550 yards away, but this distance is much farther than our experience with the round tells us it is truly effective. A term that is relative to a politician or officer in the rear might be less debatable for the US Marine engaging across ridge lines in Afghanistan. Simply put, it is not really "effective" in the sense that we need it to be, if they are still shooting at you. Or, for the sportsman, if you still have to track the animal. We need to revise how we express the effectiveness of our weapons so that it actually applies to how we use them.
Our knowledge of terminal ballistics has shown us the importance of velocity in wounding. We now know that energy as a figure for determining potential trauma is limited. For those with even an superficial understanding of basic physics concepts, the impulse matters as much as the amount of energy. The impulse is the amount of time it takes energy to be transferred. A projectile has energy as mass and velocity. The only way it uses this energy is through losing mass or velocity. The amount of time this takes is crucial in determining how your projectile interacts with living tissue, and is a function of velocity.
We all know what "hydrostatic shock" is, or are at least aware of it as a concept. The pressurized shock wave that moves away from the impact of a projectile in a liquid or semi-liquid medium can be demonstrated to awesome effect simply by shooting milk jugs filled with water. This effect is present regardless of the velocity of the projectile. However, our tissue is thankfully much more resilient to these forces than plastic milk jugs. Living tissue stretches and deforms, then returns to normal with little to no permanent damage. This allows the body to absorb an incredible amount of energy without damage because the impulse is too long. For this reason, energy is irrelevant as a indicator of effectiveness with projectile impacts under 2200 fps. At velocities above 2200 fps, the impulse is too short, the impact too violent. Tissue can not stretch or deform far or fast enough. It tears and breaks apart, damaging or destroying tissue for several inches beyond the path of the actual projectile. This is what makes a rifle a rifle and a handgun a handgun. Speed kills. Whereas about 1 in 4 people shot in the torso with a handgun dies, about 1 in 4 people shot in the torso with a rifle lives. Hollywood lied to you. High velocity rifles are orders of magnitude more effective than handguns.
So our first indicator of effectiveness should be the range to which our weapon will be truly effective, bring shock and awe, and "kill like a rifle." For this, we want 1000 foot pounds of energy on target and the velocity to use it, so at least 2200 fps. All of this power does no good if the average shooter can't find his mark, so our definition of effective range should include the ability to realistically find, range, and engage with a high degree of accuracy. So for the purposes of this discussion, we are going to say that:

Effective Point Target Rifle Range of a given firearm/optic/load is that which the individual marksman can identify, range, and engage with a hit percentage of no less than 75% and deliver 1000 foot pounds on target with at least 2200 fps.
Effective Point Target Casualty Range of a given firearm/optic/load is that which the individual marksman can engage with a hit percentage of no less than 50% and deliver a projectile with sufficient mass and velocity to reach vital organs and produce a potentially lethal wound.

Despite the stricter accuracy standards, velocity and energy will usually determine the Effective Point Target Rifle Range. The 5.56 will pack plenty of velocity out to 300+ yards, but lacks the mass and therefore the energy. The 7.62x39 has the opposite problem. We run into accuracy limitations when determining Effective Point Target Casualty Range because many of our rifle rounds are capable of producing casualties to much farther out than most of us can identify targets and place rounds under realistic conditions.

It is important to note that when we discuss handguns or older straight-walled blackpowder cartridges producing less than 2200 fps at the muzzle, there is no Effective Point Target Rifle Range. With handgun velocities, we are just poking holes. The caliber and depth of penetration is all that matters. Energy does not contribute significantly to wounding at these velocities and our effectiveness has dramatically decreased such that at this point, we are mostly creating casualties, so there is no energy threshold for Effective Point Target Casualty Range. It is also important to note that we are not discussing bullet design at this point. We would be inferring a relative performance standard assuming we compare projectiles of similar construction.

With that in mind, the M855 leaving a 20 inch barrel @ 3020 fps looks something like this:
Effective Point Target Rifle Range = 100 yards (2749 fps/1040fpe)
Effective Point Target Casualty Range = (presumably) ~550 yards

With hunting season upon us, it might be interesting to see what the effective ranges of your hunting load are:
.308 Win 150 gr Hornady SST @ 2750 fps from a 20 in barrel
Effective Point Target Effective Rifle Range = 300 yards (2200 fps/1600 fpe)
Effective Point Target Casualty Range = I only have a 3.5x Trijicon TA11J, and haven't had the time or ammo to really stretch this rig, so I am going to limit shots to my Effective Rifle Range. But in theory, this load could produce a potentially lethal wound about as far out as you could hit with it, say, at least 750 to 800 yards, at which point it will be transonic, but still packing the mass and momentum of a 147 gr 9mm round.
 
Last edited:
Just because it gets there and can poke a hole dosen't mean you're within "effective range". I was just having this conversation with a friend. I was talking about buying a new hunting rifle, something to take pronghorn hunting. He's telling me "just use your AR. 5.56 is good to 500yrds". Can it make hits? Certainly. Undeniably. Will it put a mammal down with authority at that range? Nope.
 
The effective point target range of the M16A4 service rifle with M855 is listed as 550 yards, IIRC. This number is derived from the round's ability to penetrate a standard 1980s-issue Soviet helmet and the computed hit percentages of average infantrymen. In the past, the military has used 1/2" pine boards. This all results in numbers that are abstract and ambiguous, difficult to apply in the real world and often laughably optimistic. A 5.56mm rifle round is certainly capable of poking a potentially lethal hole in someone from 550 yards away, but this distance is much farther than our experience with the round tells us it is truly effective. A term that is relative to a politician or officer in the rear might be less debatable for the US Marine engaging across ridge lines in Afghanistan. Simply put, it is not really "effective" in the sense that we need it to be, if they are still shooting at you. Or, for the sportsman, if you still have to track the animal. We need to revise how we express the effectiveness of our weapons so that it actually applies to how we use them.
Our knowledge of terminal ballistics has shown us the importance of velocity in wounding. We now know that energy as a figure for determining potential trauma is limited. For those with even an superficial understanding of basic physics concepts, the impulse matters as much as the amount of energy. The impulse is the amount of time it takes energy to be transferred. A projectile has energy as mass and velocity. The only way it uses this energy is through losing mass or velocity. The amount of time this takes is crucial in determining how your projectile interacts with living tissue, and is a function of velocity.
We all know what "hydrostatic shock" is, or are at least aware of it as a concept. The pressurized shock wave that moves away from the impact of a projectile in a liquid or semi-liquid medium can be demonstrated to awesome effect simply by shooting milk jugs filled with water. This effect is present regardless of the velocity of the projectile. However, our tissue is thankfully much more resilient to these forces than plastic milk jugs. Living tissue stretches and deforms, then returns to normal with little to no permanent damage. This allows the body to absorb an incredible amount of energy without damage because the impulse is too long. For this reason, energy is irrelevant as a indicator of effectiveness with projectile impacts under 2200 fps. At velocities above 2200 fps, the impulse is too short, the impact too violent. Tissue can not stretch or deform far or fast enough. It tears and breaks apart, damaging or destroying tissue for several inches beyond the path of the actual projectile. This is what makes a rifle a rifle and a handgun a handgun. Speed kills. Whereas about 1 in 4 people shot in the torso with a handgun dies, about 1 in 4 people shot in the torso with a rifle lives. Hollywood lied to you. High velocity rifles are orders of magnitude more effective than handguns.
So our first indicator of effectiveness should be the range to which our weapon will be truly effective, bring shock and awe, and "kill like a rifle." For this, we want 1000 foot pounds of energy on target and the velocity to use it, so at least 2200 fps. All of this power does no good if the average shooter can't find his mark, so our definition of effective range should include the ability to realistically find, range, and engage with a high degree of accuracy. So for the purposes of this discussion, we are going to say that:

Effective Point Target Rifle Range of a given firearm/optic/load is that which the individual marksman can identify, range, and engage with a hit percentage of no less than 75% and deliver 1000 foot pounds on target with at least 2200 fps.
Effective Point Target Casualty Range of a given firearm/optic/load is that which the individual marksman can engage with a hit percentage of no less than 50% and deliver a projectile with sufficient mass and velocity to reach vital organs and produce a potentially lethal wound.

Despite the stricter accuracy standards, velocity and energy will usually determine the Effective Point Target Rifle Range. The 5.56 will pack plenty of velocity out to 300+ yards, but lacks the mass and therefore the energy. The 7.62x39 has the opposite problem. We run into accuracy limitations when determining Effective Point Target Casualty Range because many of our rifle rounds are capable of producing casualties to much farther out than most of us can identify targets and place rounds under realistic conditions.

It is important to note that when we discuss handguns or older straight-walled blackpowder cartridges producing less than 2200 fps at the muzzle, there is no Effective Point Target Rifle Range. With handgun velocities, we are just poking holes. The caliber and depth of penetration is all that matters. Energy does not contribute significantly to wounding at these velocities and our effectiveness has dramatically decreased such that at this point, we are mostly creating casualties, so there is no energy threshold for Effective Point Target Casualty Range. It is also important to note that we are not discussing bullet design at this point. We would be inferring a relative performance standard assuming we compare projectiles of similar construction.

With that in mind, the M855 leaving a 20 inch barrel @ 3020 fps looks something like this:
Effective Point Target Rifle Range = 100 yards (2749 fps/1040fpe)
Effective Point Target Casualty Range = (presumably) ~550 yards

With hunting season upon us, it might be interesting to see what the effective ranges of your hunting load are:
.308 Win 150 gr Hornady SST @ 2750 fps from a 20 in barrel
Effective Point Target Effective Rifle Range = 300 yards (2200 fps/1600 fpe)
Effective Point Target Casualty Range = I only have a 3.5x Trijicon TA11J, and haven't had the time or ammo to really stretch this rig, so I am going to limit shots to my Effective Rifle Range. But in theory, this load could produce a potentially lethal wound about as far out as you could hit with it, say, at least 750 to 800 yards, at which point it will be transonic, but still packing the mass and momentum of a 147 gr 9mm round.

Thank you.

This is lost on so many "Academic" experts.




GR
 
The effective point target range of the M16A4 service rifle with M855 is listed as 550 yards, IIRC. This number is derived from the round's ability to penetrate a standard 1980s-issue Soviet helmet and the computed hit percentages of average infantrymen.
Actually, the helmet used in the penetration test was a standard US M1 steel helmet shell, no liner.

The 'official' penetration target is now defined as a 3.45 mm thick mild steel plate. The M80 will penetrate that at 620 meters and M855 at 640 meters.

And, there is a bit more to the calculation of "effective range" than just the ability to penetrate a steel pot. M80 ball will penetrate one side of an M1 steel helmet shell out to 800 meters, and M855, one side of the helmet at 1,300 meters. Yet the "effective range" for the M80 out of an M14 is given as 460 meters (off-hand) and 700 meters (bipod) and out of an M240 as 1,800 meters (suppressive fire). For the M855 out of an M16A2 550 meters (point) and 800 meters (area), and out of an M249: 1,000 meters (suppressive).

What you have stated here:
Effective Point Target Casualty Range of a given firearm/optic/load is that which the individual marksman can engage with a hit percentage of no less than 50% and deliver a projectile with sufficient mass and velocity to reach vital organs and produce a potentially lethal wound.
is actually the definition (almost verbatim) used by the Army in establishing the published effective range.

I just think there is considerable disagreement on how to figure out this part:

"with sufficient mass and velocity to reach vital organs and produce a potentially lethal wound."
 
Last edited:
It's not just the cartridge/rifle combo, either.

A fundamental question is how far away can a target be perceived and identified.
How far away can you identify a brown paper sack against a brown background matters.
The range at which your front sight is the same width as that paper sack also matters.

Which is why glass matters. It does not make you more accurate, it just makes you more able to aim at a specific target.

Set up a standard rack of bowling pins. That's a target that can be engaged out to extreme ranges. A single pin in that array, on the other hand, is more complicated to hit.

Only after being able to identify and aim on a target does the ballistics matter.

This is a worth discussion topic, if incredibly academic.
A .22LR is dangerous out to around 2600 yards, and 1 MOA is about 22 feet at that distance.
M2 Ball is dangerous out to 3600-3800 yards, but no one is going to claim to be able to precisely aim at 2 miles. Create a "beaten zone"? Sure, not an issue.
 
All good points, but much is determined by the intended use. In hunting, the object is to kill your your target as quickly and humanly as possible and minimize tracking. You are using aimed shots. And you are using expanding ammo which is more effective.
In the military first of all you are using FMJ usually. Also your objective in addition to killing may be to wound or render your attacker ineffective, or fire to keep them at bay or not allow them to advance or shoot freely. Another use is mass fire, throwing lead in hopes of hitting a group of targets etc. seen or more likely unseen. In my experience aimed shots are not real common in warfare. I was a gunner some of the time in Vietnam but also used a rifle.
But I suppose the objective measurement of penetration of a helmet at a certain range is a good indicator. You have to have some standard.
 
I’ve poked holes clear through coyotes which died within a couple dozen yards of sprinting or spinning with 77SMK’s at 700-800 yards on multiple occasions. The wheels tend to come off of the 223/5.56 past 800, and my raw group size is large enough out there that I’m at the outer bound of my “effective” range with almost any rifle I own, but getting the killing done at that range doesn’t bring me any concern. Does that mean my “effective range” is 800?

Rhetorical - labeling or debating it won’t change how it actually happens in the field.
 
just read the army is finely ditching the under powder 556 and going to 6.8 , it will take a few years to field it to all but some units will be switching soon,

The new rifle uses a new 6.8-millimeter round, replacing various 5.56-caliber rounds that U.S. Army rifles and carbines have used since 1965. The Army, concerned that the 5.56 has reached the end of the line in terms of lethality, range, and weight savings, decided it needed a newer, longer-range, but lighter round.
 

LOL That program has about as much chance to replacing the M16, M4 and SAW as the half dozen or so previous programs did. It all looks great on paper until the accounts start pushing the numbers around and go into sticker shock and they scrap the program only to try again in a few years. It's a daunting task to replace all the weapons, parts, ammunition, supplies line, training for the soldier, training for the armorers etc. The cost are huge compared to the benefits. One of these days it will happen but I give this particular program a 50/50 chance at best. I handled all of the submissions last year at AUSA show and though promising they are not yet ready for prime time, yet. The ammunition requirements are really tuff and this making the rifle development tough too. Don't hold you breath on this one.
 
LOL That program has about as much chance to replacing the M16, M4 and SAW as the half dozen or so previous programs did. It all looks great on paper until the accounts start pushing the numbers around and go into sticker shock and they scrap the program only to try again in a few years. It's a daunting task to replace all the weapons, parts, ammunition, supplies line, training for the soldier, training for the armorers etc. The cost are huge compared to the benefits. One of these days it will happen but I give this particular program a 50/50 chance at best. I handled all of the submissions last year at AUSA show and though promising they are not yet ready for prime time, yet. The ammunition requirements are really tuff and this making the rifle development tough too. Don't hold you breath on this one.

Yet those same accountants have no problem with $100 million planes.
 
just read the army is finely ditching the under powder 556 and going to 6.8 , it will take a few years to field it to all but some units will be switching soon,

The new rifle uses a new 6.8-millimeter round, replacing various 5.56-caliber rounds that U.S. Army rifles and carbines have used since 1965. The Army, concerned that the 5.56 has reached the end of the line in terms of lethality, range, and weight savings, decided it needed a newer, longer-range, but lighter round.

Jo Jo, no offense, but this has been in the works for at least a couple of years. Until the platforms and ammo are proven in extensive testing, it isn't replacing anything. The military has been down this road several times over the years to replace the 5.56. They may do it this time, or may not. Only time will tell. Point is, it isn't a done deal.

And just to clarify, the 5.56 was not under powered. It was lower powered by comparison to larger calibers, but was not under powered for the caliber.
 
just read the army is finely ditching the under powder 556 and going to 6.8 , it will take a few years to field it to all but some units will be switching soon,

I'm not holding my breath on this. The 308 was ditched because it recoiled too much to be controlled in rapid fire and the amount of ammo that could be carried was limited. The new 6.8 cartridge gets us right back where we were with 308. Same recoil, same ammo capacity.

I can see the new round being issued for limited uses. Perhaps 1 rifle per squad for the times when there is a need for longer range engagements or for some special forces missions. But for 99% of what the military does 5.56 is more than adequate. At ranges inside of 300 yards it works just fine. With modern military tactics shots beyond 100 yards are rare anyway. I don't want to send our boys out to fight with inadequate weapons. But as a tax payer don't want us to spend $ Billions to get a miniscule improvement.
 
I'm not holding my breath on this. The 308 was ditched because it recoiled too much to be controlled in rapid fire and the amount of ammo that could be carried was limited. The new 6.8 cartridge gets us right back where we were with 308. Same recoil, same ammo capacity

So to break this down a bit, and say what isn’t being said... the military is trying to backtrack on a decision made years ago. To backtrack means that their decision was wrong. They will never do anything to allow that impression to go mainstream. They will find some scrap of a benefit and cling to it as their reason to change. I suspect the move to .223 was a doubling down on their move from 30-06 to .308. Have to track back a few iterations before you can find the real reason, and then you find the benefit and POOF magic happens.
 
The military has always tried to make one weapon replace many. It can work in some situations but not others. You always want more range and firepower than the guy you are fighting. Rather than have just one issue weapon for everywhere I think they should consider having a longer range basic weapon for some theaters of operation. Last I knew they didn't care what i think.
 
What you have stated here:

is actually the definition (almost verbatim) used by the Army in establishing the published effective range.

I just think there is considerable disagreement on how to figure out this part:

"with sufficient mass and velocity to reach vital organs and produce a potentially lethal wound."

I am aware. Like I said, terms which are relative or subjective to a general or politician in the rear are not nearly so debatable on the front line. The military brass and politicians that make these decisions are interested in casualties more than actual fight stopping ability. To the soldier or Marine on the ground, hitting and creating casualties is only half the battle. The casualties need to stop shooting at you or the actual effectiveness of your weapon system is limited. Likewise, the sportsman is ethically bound by fair chase to kill their quarry as quickly and humanely as possible. A responsible sportsman is not just interested in the range at which he can reliably poke a hole in something "most" of the time. They are more interested in the range to which they can hit reliably and with enough authority to put the animal down immediately. This is why I distinguish between a lethal effective range, that which you can expect immediate incapacitation of a threat, and the much longer casualty effective range at which you can poke a serious hole in somebody, or something. Effective Point Target Rifle Range is intended to describe a higher and more meaningful level of effectiveness than the Effective Point Target Casualty Range that seems to be what most think of when they use the term "effective range." It is intended to give a practical idea of how a weapon system performs for its intended purpose under field conditions and reflect a more realistic expectation of effectiveness for the modern sportsman, self defender, or professional gunfighter.
 
just read the army is finely ditching the under powder 556 and going to 6.8 , it will take a few years to field it to all but some units will be switching soon,

The new rifle uses a new 6.8-millimeter round, replacing various 5.56-caliber rounds that U.S. Army rifles and carbines have used since 1965. The Army, concerned that the 5.56 has reached the end of the line in terms of lethality, range, and weight savings, decided it needed a newer, longer-range, but lighter round.

I'll believe it when I see it. The Marine Corp just switched to the HK. You don't issue an HK M27 to every Marine if you are going to adopt an entirely new cartridge and weapon system in the next couple years. This 6.8 round has been in the works for years, but some of us have been in the game long enough to remember other projects that were supposedly set to replace the 5.56 and/or the M16, only to have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute. The OICW became the XM8 which became another order of M4 Carbines. The 6.8 SPC and the 6 ARC have both been created at request of special operations to increase range and lethality of the M4, but both see only limited acceptance. The SCAR H provides a lightweight battle rifle from a manufacture with established relationship with US military, and it too sees only limited acceptance. Soldiers and Marines seem largely satisfied with their current weapons. The M16/M4 is a mature platform, refined, and proven. Replacing it is expensive and time consuming, and the military is having a hard time finding something with a large enough performance increase to justify the expense. Will the new 6.8 eventually be what replaces the 5.56? Maybe in the long term, and until then, some fickle bean counter could pull the rug out from under it like any number of other projects with little in the way of excuse and even less warning. Don't be surprised if US troops have the M16/M4 or some derivative thereof and the 5.56 for another decade or more.
 
I cannot comment on the hunting aspect of "effective range", however, as far as the military field manual published "effective range" is a mostly meaningless number.

If a soldier can see a target he will take a shot at it, call for artillery, or both. He is not going to whip out a range finder and say, "Oh, that guy is 578 meters away, that is outside the effective range published in FM 3-22.9. I should not bother to shoot at them."

"Effective range" for the military is a metric used to justify funding for a new, or improved, small arms weapon system [1].

-- The 5.56mm M193 ball shot from an M16A1 had an "effective range" published as 460 meters, the same as the published "effective range" of the M80 ball fired from an M14. That was justification that the M193 was "just as good" as the M80. Yay!
-- The 5.56mm M885 ball shot from an M16A2 had an "effective range" published as 550 meters, see we have increased the "effective range" by 100 yards. Again, yay!
-- Now they are floating around some new caliber and cartridge that will increase the "effective range" of the individual weapon. See, we're improving!

With military individual weapons (rifles and carbines) fired at enemy troops, the "effective range", to a large extent, is the range at which you can reliably hit a target's center of mass, regardless of the damage done. Because to can shoot someone with a .30-06 at 20 yards and not put them down. And, since the range at which a soldier is capable of achieving a center of mass shot hit is largely dependent on training, terrain, and the limitations of the human eye, the "effective range" of these will never be more than 500 to 600 yards.
________________________
1. With artillery, tank guns and anti-material weapons, "effective range" has a more concrete definition. How far can to lob an artillery shell and keep all the shots inside a 100 meter square, at what range will an AP shot get complete penetration of the frontal armor of an enemy tank, At what altitude can you hit an airplane, or penetrate a truck engine block. These can be tested directly and if the results are repeatable, you have a very good definition of "effective range". The maximum range you can disable a human being has way too many variables to be tested in a manner that the results will be repeatable (and not to mention, it's kind'a inhumane).
 
We’ll see about this new composite cases ammunition. I can’t see it being capable of pressures even close to brass. Forget any kind of range...which was the failure of the 6.8spc GARBAGE round! There is nothing wrong with the 5.56/223. The problem is military bureaucracy! Always some that need to create a fix for a problem that never existed! And of course, they LOVE spending our money.

Boy, this thread took an interesting turn.
 
I was told that in the military "effective range" is the range that an AVERAGE individual can place a hit on a stationary man sized target. This, of course, leaves lots of variables in play.
 
Don't forget that the effective range for the military might be considerably different than effective range for a civilian.
Penetration is a big deal for the military. They need to be able to shoot through hard targets and might be willing to sacrifice some terminal performance in soft tissue for that pursuit. Regular Joes like me don't particularly care about hard target penetration. Tissue damage be it from expansion, fragmentation or tumbling, is more important to me. The person I have to shoot needs to stop and isn't likely to be wearing CRISAT equivalent plates or helmets.

It's entirely possible that the effective range of a modern 5.56 round is just as far if not farther than older 7.62 rounds, if your goal is to punch holes in body armor.
 
Wasn't the 6.8 magnum originally meant to be a more powerful light machine gun?
And the idea for an infantry rifle for the same ammo kind of rode in on its coattails.
 
We’ll see about this new composite cases ammunition. I can’t see it being capable of pressures even close to brass. Forget any kind of range...which was the failure of the 6.8spc GARBAGE round! There is nothing wrong with the 5.56/223. The problem is military bureaucracy! Always some that need to create a fix for a problem that never existed! And of course, they LOVE spending our money.

Boy, this thread took an interesting turn.

The True Velocity (teamed with General Dynamics in the NGSW program) composite case (polymer and steel) has a steel case head in it. Combining the compliance of a well engineer polymer to form an excellent gas seal backed up by steel for the structural strength. I suspect the case will survive higher pressures than a brass case will.

Sigs case for the NGSW is a steel/brass highbred and again utilizing a steel case head it has already proven to go well over pressures all brass cases can survive.

Finally Textrons entry to the NGSW program is using case telescoping ammunition and this unique cartridge is supported in such a way as to make case strength almost irrelevant. I believe they are using and all polymer case that will easily out perform brass cases in this application due the the guns design.
 
I'll believe it when I see it. The Marine Corp just switched to the HK. You don't issue an HK M27 to every Marine if you are going to adopt an entirely new cartridge and weapon system in the next couple years. This 6.8 round has been in the works for years, but some of us have been in the game long enough to remember other projects that were supposedly set to replace the 5.56 and/or the M16, only to have the rug pulled out from under them at the last minute. The OICW became the XM8 which became another order of M4 Carbines. The 6.8 SPC and the 6 ARC have both been created at request of special operations to increase range and lethality of the M4, but both see only limited acceptance. The SCAR H provides a lightweight battle rifle from a manufacture with established relationship with US military, and it too sees only limited acceptance. Soldiers and Marines seem largely satisfied with their current weapons. The M16/M4 is a mature platform, refined, and proven. Replacing it is expensive and time consuming, and the military is having a hard time finding something with a large enough performance increase to justify the expense. Will the new 6.8 eventually be what replaces the 5.56? Maybe in the long term, and until then, some fickle bean counter could pull the rug out from under it like any number of other projects with little in the way of excuse and even less warning. Don't be surprised if US troops have the M16/M4 or some derivative thereof and the 5.56 for another decade or more.
This right here. ^^^^
The military isn't going to change over without a seriously good reason to upgrade. Incremental minor improvements are not worth changing out the entire arsenal of M4 and M16 rifles. All the speculation on the new handguns the military bought, made me laugh because the performance of a handgun isn't all that important to the military as long as it meets specs. 9x19 NATO wasn't going away. The guys carrying the new Sig handguns aren't going to be your front line troops, save for the officers and some NCOs. The rest are going to spend most of their service life in the holsters of MPs guarding things. They'll never be fired in anger and will rack up most of their round counts on the ranges.
The Beretta got replaced because they were getting old and worn out. If the Army was going to pay to replace them, it made sense to hold a trial and see what improvements there were in the 30+ years since the adoption of the Beretta, but nobody was expecting anything radically different.
Likewise, the military isn't going to replace a very functional rifle platform. Even if they do change up the ammo, I wouldn't expect to see anything new until the current crop of M4s are reaching end of life. And even then, it will likely be another AR platform, just in a new caliber. The USMC did exactly that with the M27; AR platform with a different gas system.
Personally, I'd love to see the military adopt 6.5 Grendel, but mainly because I like the round and am hoping the demand created by the military would carry over into the civilian market and make it cheaper for me to buy, the way 5.56 got really cheap. It might also spur some interest in chambering AKs in 6.5 Grendel and I just have a thing for the AK platform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top