Marine Corps possibly looking for new caliber

Status
Not open for further replies.

Steel185

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2010
Messages
107
Location
Ankeny, IA
I found this in the March 8th 2010 edition of the Marine Corps Times.
nothing dramatic, but obvously they are thinking of something more than the 5.56mm. I personally didn't like the last bit, the article is talking about 7.62 rounds, but reality they are taking about 7.62x39 (ak-47s) a shorter round than our 7.62x51 rifle rounds we used in M1G and our medium machine guns (M240 series).

oh, i'm a new guy, have been reading and learning for a while, not much to add as far as knowledge...yet. Good to be here.
 

Attachments

  • caliber article.pdf
    362.7 KB · Views: 77
Last edited:
The Marines knew what they want since fighting in Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I haven't read the article yet but I entend to. Based on your OP, I think they KNOW they need something else, but they're not going to get it. As a tax payer, I would really be upset if they start developing a round that is going to be the latest and greatest. It's far too costly and there are plenty of calibers to chose from already. The 6.8spc was supposed to bridge the gap between 7.62 and 5.56. Last time I checked it was running about $1 per round, and it's not being used militarily that I know of (sorry if I'm incorrect in that).

Even if they stick to an existing cartridge, the cost of upgrading to it would be too expensive. This isn't the economic time to start looking to upgrade.
 
I think the top brass wants so badly but kept from doing so bec of economic recession.
 
Interesting article on the subject from 2006:

Since the M16's introduction, soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and civilians have criticized it for being underpowered, more suited for shooting prairie dogs than fighting wars. Although ammunition has improved, the 0.22-inch caliber ultimately limits the amount of lead that can be slung down-range. In spite of this, the M16 and M4 have become the standard by which assault rifles are judged, and the AR-15 has become the ubiquitous American Sport-Utility Rifle........................:

http://demigodllc.com/articles/6.8-mm-spc-cartridge-history-development-hornady-stag-arms-carbine/
 
The top brass wants some new brass? Why don't we leave the Geneva/Hauge/other conventions/treaties behind and go with hollow points or soft point or something that kills better.
 
Fixed it.

Since the M16's introduction civilians have criticized it for being underpowered, more suited for shooting prairie dogs than fighting wars. Although ammunition has improved, the 0.22-inch caliber ultimately limits the amount of lead that can be slung down-range. In spite of this, the M16 and M4 have become the standard by which assault rifles are judged, and the AR-15 has become the ubiquitous American Sport-Utility Rifle........................:
 
Since the M16's introduction civilians have criticized it for being underpowered, more suited for shooting prairie dogs than fighting wars. Although ammunition has improved, the 0.22-inch caliber ultimately limits the amount of lead that can be slung down-range. In spite of this, the M16 and M4 have become the standard by which assault rifles are judged, and the AR-15 has become the ubiquitous American Sport-Utility Rifle........................:

A fix indeed. Generally the people most critical of the 5.56 are people who have never seen it used in combat. They have only seen it as a varmint round, thus only think of it as a varmint round. Those who have been deployed and used the 5.56 again insurgents on the other hand, know good and well it is more than capable.
 
The top brass wants some new brass? Why don't we leave the Geneva/Hauge/other conventions/treaties behind and go with hollow points or soft point or something that kills better.
Because to do so would be irresponsible. For expanding rounds in combat you also make your civilian population a viable target, you make POW's a thing of the past there would be no POW's on either side, if anyone is captured in action they could be executed (a $0.30 round versus building camps and securing them). The same restriction applies to both signatories during conflict, so what you gain is lost since the other side would reply with the same thing.

Since body armor is now being commonly fielded by real armies (who signed the Hague and Geneva Conventions), the expanding rounds day in warfare is over.

As far as criticism goes, is the current round "the best" no, is it effective in most engagements yes, certainly effective enough in the engagements I've had where shots were fired. However I also know that every soldier will complain about something sometimes, it's his equipment, his load out, his rifle, his boots, his leave. It's not hard to find people who complain in the Services. Those that don't have a complaint say nothing, so it can seem that the signal to noise is the 5.56 is ineffective, however the noise is so low that the signal of people saying they've found it ineffective is interpreted as meaningful.

As always YMMV.
 
"We learned with the M14 that managing that recoil across the service, especially with small stature women and men, is hard to do," Ehy said, "If we have problems today with bucking and flinching on the 5.56, you can quadruple that with 7.62. We have service-level concerns about [going] so big that you get the ultimate lethality at the expense of marksmanship."

I think this quote from the OP referenced article cuts to the heart of the matter. Add to it the financial cost of changing to a more powerful round, and the conclusion is "we'll stay with what we got."
 
What? You think officials in Washington are crazy enough to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on bullets? They've got far more important ways to waste money!
 
they have been trying to develop the "next generation" infantry rifle since 1996. the best they came up with was a 18"barreled burp gun using a 30 round magazine of 5.56 attached to a 20mm grenade launcher rifle with smart rounds.

they really have no intention to adopt a new cartridge, or to even go back to 30 carbine or 30-06 or 7.62x51 as a standard rifle round. Are doctrine is spray and pray techniques that preclude the use of heavy to carry ammo versus light weight easy to carry ammo like 5.56
even if you take a m4 or m16 and give it a .308 or 30-06 barrel youll still have the horrid recoil issues we had in nam before we went with 5.56
 
Unlikely to happen.

Current rounds are used not only by the US, but other NATO nations, and some non-NATO as well.
This means ammo can be acquired from many sources and logistical sources overlapped when needed.

Weight is also a big concern. A fast .22 like the 5.56 weighs far less than most other rounds while still doing a decent job.
This means each marine can carry more ammo and fire more rounds at a target. Since they will have to carry their own ammo on foot for miles in some cases prior to a firefight this can be very important.

Since most of the weight of a cartridge comes from the projectile, and powder is relatively light, the ideal cartridge would be one with a light projectile, and a lot of powder to make it work.
That 5.56 does that.

I think a 7.62x51 is better for many things, but it cuts how many rounds a soldier can carry in half being twice as heavy.
A shorter 7.62 round would still be heavy, just with less light weight powder (and slightly less brass to contain it).

You also arm a military not just with what will be best for asymmetrical warfare, but what will work well when they deploy against a modern military force.
Most military forces of the world wear body armor.
A lot of 5.56 pinning down the enemy while artillery or airstrikes are in bound makes more sense than running out of 7.62, or going for pure accuracy and not keeping the enemy pinned.

There is also the issue of how many rounds are realistically held in a reliable standard magazine. The difference between 20 and 30 can be huge.

When moving as a fire team a lot of moderately accurate rounds fired perform better than fewer highly accurate rounds fired.
While a skilled lone individual is better with highly accurate fire, a fire team has other members maneuvering. So it is less important that each round takes out the target, and more important that rounds keep the enemy from firing on your team. The longer the enemy is pinned the more angles he will receive fire from.
So time is against him as long as he has lead pouring down on him.
Whether he has more soldiers moving in on him, or heavier firepower being directed to his position, he is in trouble if he cannot move.
A lot of small rounds accomplish this better than fewer large rounds.

For the cartridge of a fire team it is well suited. Since they also have many larger weapons for special purpose, from AT weapons with a variety of warheads, support vehicles, .50s, automatic grenade launchers, hand and rifle grenades, etc they don't need the rifle to do everything. They need it to be an effective fire team weapon. The 5.56 and quantity of ammo it allows is perfect for that role.
It is just a rifle (and SAW), not the only tool in their toolbox.
 
Last edited:
"...even if you take a m4 or m16 and give it a .308 or 30-06 barrel youll still have the horrid recoil issues we had in nam before we went with 5.56."

Yeah, all them G.I.s from WWII complained constantly about the "horrid recoil" of the Garand!!
 
You deploy and use an M-4 much differently than a heavy rifle. I had to re-learn how to shoot after a 15-year break, because we don't do it the same anymore. Now we tuck it in tight to the shoulder pointing forward, not to the side, and we can shorten the rifle to keep the eye against the sights because the recoil of the rifle is light enough that it won't beat us up. You can't move and shoot this way with a rifle that has significant recoil.
 
.243win
nuff said.

will fit the action length of the M16/M4.

established/proven load(s).

much respect for all experienced advocation of the .223 (5.56NATO), but i put you to task to prove to me that the .223 is a better antipersonnel round than the .243 could be, even using "global community friendly" ball ammunition.
 
The Army is very PC

One of the main reasons the Army uses 5.56 is because the girls are in it now, don't wan't to scare them with a hard hitting round! The 5.56 is a decent round that will kill most of the time but there are better options, but it sacrificies penetration and stopping power for carrying capacity.
 
One of the main reasons the Army uses 5.56 is because the girls are in it now, don't wan't to scare them with a hard hitting round! The 5.56 is a decent round that will kill most of the time but there are better options, but it sacrificies penetration and stopping power for carrying capacity.

I'm hoping you just forgot to add the smiley icon denoting sarcasm.
 
I don't know, I have doubts that a bigger round would be much more effective. A lot of the fighters over in Iraq and Afghanistan are drug users, drugs are found pretty commonly on them and someone jacked up on whatever isn't going to go down much easier from a 7.62x39 than a 5.56
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top