Military Caliber

[ArtP]

It seems everyone thinks the two-two-three is too light as the principle military caliber. I realize we also use 7.62x51 etc. But the 5.62x45 it seems is the standard caliber. Why don't we change our standard?

This question may have been asked and answered a thousand times over, but I've yet to see it.

First, I understand the millions (if not billions) of dollars in cost to change it and getting the rest of the NATO members on-board, and I'd like to think I understand the criteria for choosing a default caliber. The criteria must be; "stopping power", range, carry weight, action length, accuracy, cost, recoil, magazine capacity.

In today's world, given the criteria, would the .243 make better sense? Would it be worth it? What would your choice be? A .25-08 might make sense to me, that is a .308 short action case necked down to .257. Perhaps even the .260?

 

[JPG19]

I like the 5.56 - it gets the job done and allows me to carry more ammo at any given time. I see no problem with it.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

One of the principle reasons 5.56 is the standard is because of how much you can carry of it versus other calibers. You can carry significantly more 5.56 than say .308 for the same weight.

More reasons would be for the same size magazine you only get about 2/3's of the ammo in .308, 5.56 is very little recoil which lends itself to accurate sustained fire, and (roughly) 90% or more of US military small arms are already chambered for it.

So although there may be better options, the truth is the 5.56 is a proven man stopper and changing to a new round would IMO cost far more than what you gaining.

 

[ArtP]

I'm not in the military and I don't know. But I have heard reports that it's too light and lacks power. If you're so willing, would you tell what "gets the job done" means to you regarding your use?

 

[ArtP]

More reasons would be for the same size magazine you only get about 2/3's of the ammo in .308, 5.56 is very little recoil which lends itself to accurate sustained fire, and (roughly) 90% or more of US military small arms are already chambered for it.

So although there may be better options, the truth is the 5.56 is a proven man stopper and changing to a new round would IMO cost far more than what you gaining.

I think I addressed or acknowledged those concerns you raised. I'm asking if you think adding a little more (weight/bulk/recoil) in the form of a short action caliber wouldn't be worth it?

I've read reports of taliban forces getting up and walking away after being hit. I've heard the same of deer hit with a 30-06. My sample size is too small.

I don't know, it's why I'm asking.

 

[o Unforgiven o]

I think I addressed or acknowledged those concerns you raised. I'm asking if you think adding a little more (weight/bulk/recoil) in the form of a short action caliber wouldn't be worth it?

I do think there are better choices than 5.56, but to answer you no I do not think it would be worthwhile to change. I mean we are talking about millions of weapons here, and even with the far reduced cost the government incurs by purchasing in bulk we are still looking at a bill in the billions.

I've read reports of taliban forces getting up and walking away after being hit. I've heard the same of deer hit with a 30-06. My sample size is too small.

I don't know, it's why I'm asking.

Well Art I have heard those same things, and I think as dissimilar a man is to a deer and 5.56 is to 30-06, they both share the same problem. Not hitting your target in a area that will cause enough damage to incapacitate.

(As an aside, it is late and what I say now I might read in the morning and )

 

[Sergei Mosin]

The advantage of the 5.56x45 is that you can carry a lot of it, and it does fine at most battle ranges. The disadvantage is that it's not so good at long range and penetration of steel, concrete, etc is relatively poor.

The advantage of the 7.62x51 is that it's very effective at long range and can penetrate more than the smaller round. The disadvantage is that you can't carry very much of it.

An intermediate cartridge would have all of the disadvantages and none of the advantages. You wouldn't be able to carry very much of it. It would be more effective at long range and have better penetration than the 5.56x45, but it wouldn't be as good at those things as the 7.62x51. It would be neither fish nor fowl, not powerful enough to replace the 7.62x51 and not light enough to replace the 5.56x45 - it would be the worst of both worlds.

If you're going to carry a larger, heavier round, which translates to lower capacity, you might as well go all the way to a full-power round. If you're going to give up the effectiveness of the full-power round, you might as well drop down to the small round so that at least you can carry a lot of it. An intermediate round would be stuck in the middle, unable to do anything very well.

 

[vaupet]

First you take a good 223 with a good red dot or acog and fire a 20 round magazine in full auto.

Then one takes a 308 battle rifle, say early FAL/FALO and fire 20 rounds in full auto. (not in an indoor range as the 4th shot wil probably hit the ceiling)

now take a look at the targets.

Also, if you fire the 308 first, you don't want to fire the 223 anymore because you would need some attention to your shoulder.

all kidding aside, 308 or other heavy calibers need aimed single shot fire (you need to see your "partner", think Vietnam jungle), 223 is very good in sustained fire or suppressive fire, it's a tactical choice imho.

 

[ArtP]

you guys aren't getting this.

I'm suggesting upping the paltry .223 up a LITTLE bit, and keeping the other calibers.

If I were asked, I'd say Winchester 243 would make a better round than the .223. If our military has two rounds perhaps one should be something else?

I'd rather have a 243 in a semi auto military style rifle.

However, I'm not in the military, I can't say.

 

[R.W.Dale]

you guys aren't getting this.

I'm suggesting upping the paltry .223 up a LITTLE bit, and keeping the other calibers.

If I were asked, I'd say Winchester 243 would make a better round than the .223. If our military has two rounds perhaps one should be something else?

I'd rather have a 243 in a semi auto military style rifle.

However, I'm not in the military, I can't say.

Do you realize how brief the lifespan of a barrel would be chambered for 243 win on full auto?

Here's a hint slow fire from a well cared for bolt action allowed to cool 308 or .223 will have roughly 3 to 4 times the usefull bbl life as 243

Ammunition cartridge per cartridge 243 weight appx twice as much as 5.56 so now you can only carry half the ammo.

Lastly 5.56 makes folks stop what they were doing. How would 243 be any better?

posted via tapatalk using android.

 

[ugaarguy]

ArtP, .243 Win is just a .308 Win case necked down to hold a smaller diameter bullet. You're focusing on the bullet, and totally ignoring the cartridge. You need to understand intermediate cartridges first. Once you've wrapped your head that, then we can talk modern infantry tactics, base defense, etc.

 

[ArtP]

The way I understand barrel life, a 243 and 223 would eat barrels at about the same rate.

The way I understand barrel life -- and no one has a science on this -- is that it's the amount of powder burned in combo with the diameter of the bore. I don't see the 243 losing to an extent that would matter over a 223.

 

[ArtP]

ArtP, .243 Win is just a .308 Win case necked down to hold a smaller diameter bullet. You're focusing on the bullet, and totally ignoring the cartridge. You need to understand intermediate cartridges first. Once you've wrapped your head that, then we can talk modern infantry tactics, base defense, etc.

I own a 243 and reload for it and other calibers. I understand how it is a necked down 308. I understand cartridge dynamics. Beacause I kept saying "I don't know', referred to combat experience. I don't have experience with defending myself with a rifle.

My question -- and I'm starting to be sorry for asking -- is, if the trade-offs with weight, mag capacity, recoil wouldn't justify a heavier round. I know what the trade-offs are. Because I've never been in battle, prompts the question. Because I've never been in battle makes me desire a 243 or 257 bullet with a rational sectional density.

I simply posed the question, I never asked for the attributes of the 223 -- I know exactly what they are.

Is a bigger bullet better? It's all I was asking.

Is it worth the trade-off in COMBAT?

(please stop defining the trade-off -- do I need to carpet bomb a bunch of disclaimers?)

 

[R.W.Dale]

The way I understand barrel life, a 243 and 223 would eat barrels at about the same rate.

The way I understand barrel life -- and no one has a science on this -- is that it's the amount of powder burned in combo with the diameter of the bore. I don't see the 243 losing to an extent that would matter over a 223.

Exactly and the 243 loses out big time to 223/308

With a few other variables such as pressure thrown into the mix.

posted via tapatalk using android.

Another problem w 243 that's directly related to being so overbore is that as you chamber it in shorter barrels velocity drops like rock! I've chronographed 243 carbines that couldn't get 100g bullets over 2500 fps. 243 win from a carbine is nothing more than a loud glorified 30/30

 

[ugaarguy]

if the trade-offs with weight, mag capacity, recoil wouldn't justify a heavier round.

Simply put, No.

Going back to a .308 Win cartridge based round requires a larger & heavier rifle. Then we can get into ammo weight, mag capacity, and recoil.

Even for air base defense, it doesn't make sense. To start you're wearing 30+ lbs of body armor, and your web gear. Often that's on top of GoreTex pants & parka in inclement weather, or MOPP gear in an Nuke/Bio/Chem threat environment. You're probably carrying a radio & knife. You're also carrying a first aid kit, gloves, hearing protection, light, and water at minimum. You have other patrols with turret mounted LMGs & GPMGs, plus fixed position MGs for further support. You want a light rifle in a chambering that allows you to carry as much ammo as possible for the weight.

Infantry troops have all of the above, plus a ruck full of clothing, food, and other field gear. They're humping all that crap on foot. A few poor souls are humping a SAW & ammo for it. There's typically a designated marksman at the squad level as well. I wasn't infantry, but I've yet to talk to an 11B who told me he or she wanted a heavier rifle, with heavier ammo.

 

[TwoWheelFiend]

The addage of more is better i feel does not apply to the 5.56. I would rather have a round that delivers immediate stopping power than a round that may or may not incapacitate my opponent. I would not feel any more prepared for an encounter just because i had 30 5.56's.

 

[Sam1911]

Here's a somewhat overheated discussion of exactly this question, which we batter around every month or two:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=558745

One thing you'll probably find in reading more on the subject of the 5.56mm round in the US military is that, old soldiers who were trained with M1s, M14s, and/or the early M-16 series tend to deride the gun and the round. They appreciate the superior penetration abilities and performance at long range of the 7.62 NATO round. Those are generally the guys who haven't shouldered a ruck, patrolled a mile, or shot anyone in combat in many years.

Reviewing comments from the guys who are currently deployed, or who have deployed recently -- who carry the loads a modern US soldier has to carry, and who've fought using the tactics we now employ -- you'll see a tendency to feel that the 5.56mm round strikes a balance that works just fine for them. Of course there are exceptions. Any round will be a compromise of one sort or another.

Having said all that...

If you want to look at the closest thing we've had to adoption of a (slightly more) intermediate round, google or search here on the 6.8 SPC. In that we have a round that's been developed, improved, tested, lauded, and wholeheartedly ... not adopted for general use.

I personally feel that there would be some benefits to a slightly upgraded round, something between a 5.56mm and a 7.62x39 maybe. But it appears that, between the guys who count the beans and the guys who shoot the bad guys and the guys who study it all and advise the decision makers -- there has been no compelling need discovered to justify the expense and other negative consequences of switching rounds and/or platforms.

It won't bring any more of our boys home safely, put any more of "their" boys in body bags, and won't end our engagements sooner.

 

[Jim Watson]

If the 5.56 is so bad, why did the Soviets copy it in the 5.45?
They watched us in VietNam and undoubtedly had captured and black market ARs to work with, and went smallbore to go to Afghanistan.

 

[Sam1911]

I would rather have a round that delivers immediate stopping power than a round that may or may not incapacitate my opponent. I would not feel any more prepared for an encounter just because i had 30 5.56's.

I've read a bit and watched some things about the experiences of our current fighting men on the ground. One of the things I've discovered is that we do a lot of fighting with not a whole lot of men, generally. The relatively few troops who do engage the bad guys in direct small arms fire engagements tend to shoot a LOT of rounds. A standard combat load of several hundred 5.56 rounds is by no means "too many." Running low, or running OUT is not unheard of, and it isn't because they're having to put extra rounds into each enemy soldier because the 5.56 isn't effective.

I can't imagine telling these guys that they're going to have to carry more weight OR telling them that they have to carry less ammo.

As I said in another thread:

Here's a homework assignment. Sebastian Junger (the Perfect Storm guy) and Tim Heatherington (who was just killed in Lybia) did a documentary film on a US Army outpost in Afghanistan. It's called Restrepo. (You can watch it on-line for like $4.) Watch those guys with their enormous packs, piles of ammo, heavy armor, etc., hump those incredible hills at double-time, and observe just how small the force is at "the sharp end" and how much fire each individual soldier has to put out in every TIC.

Take the time and watch that -- even absent interest in this thread, all of us should see that film! -- and then contemplate if a different cartridge is a significant improvement to the performance or success of our fighting men.

 

[axxxel]

So we did the right choice because the communist empire did the same?

 

[TwoWheelFiend]

So the Russians did it so that must make it a good decision?

 

[68wj]

If you want to look at the closest thing we've had to adoption of a (slightly more) intermediate round, google or search here on the 6.8 SPC. In that we have a round that's been developed, improved, tested, lauded, and wholeheartedly ... not adopted for general use.

Exactly.

OP, I think your question was sincere, but you seem to only be familiar with the cartridges on Walmart's shelf. There is a slew of intermediate cartridges that improve upon the 5.56 in an M16/M4/M249/etc while avoiding some of the burdens of a 7.62x51 rifle. They all consider the "stopping power", range, carry weight, action length, accuracy, cost, recoil, magazine capacity that you laid out.

However, every cartridge is a compromise in performance, and no matter how well it is designed it must compete with the political and logistical needs of the US .mil specifically, and even NATO as a whole.

 

[Kendal Black]

My crystal ball has been sent back for repairs, but I suspect the 5.56 will be with us until the next big thing, caseless ammo.

When we go to caseless, of course there will be a big discussion on which caliber is the right one, and that is the right time to have it: when you are going to replace everything anyway.

 

[Sam1911]

So the Russians did it so that must make it a good decision?

We changed to a small caliber round. The Soviets changed to a small caliber round. The Chinese have developed their own small-caliber round (5.8mm), and on it goes.

We all study each other, and have scientists and statisticians employed to evaluate total performance of comparative military weapons systems. If something doesn't meet the need, for whatever reason (think 7.62 NATO) it is abandoned or placed in a reduced role. If a principle, like the lightweight intermediate cartridge, meets goals and performs adequately vis-a-vis it's weight, size, and recoil benefits, then it is promoted and adopted more widely. By lots of folks -- not just our pals to whom we give free stuff.

So, yes, when the guys on (potentially anyway) the other side of the wire observe, test, and spend their own money to develop similar (though not identical) rounds and weapons systems, that means something worth noting.

 

[Kendal Black]

It seems everyone thinks the two-two-three is too light as the principle military caliber. I realize we also use 7.62x51 etc. But the 5.62x45 it seems is the standard caliber. Why don't we change our standard?

It seems that the "everyone" referred to is relying heavily upon Afghanistan's conditions to make the case, as here. Where the circumstances more nearly match the assumptions behind the 5.56's design, the 5.56, of course, does rather better than it does in an exceptional situation.

To the military's credit, they have done a rather good job of getting 7.62 rifles where they are needed and making the best of the 5.56 with optical sights, improved loadings, etc.

We and our most likely allies around the world are standardized on 5.56, which is a good cartridge so long as you do not ask too much of it. Another way to look at it is that the Army has two sizes in rifle cartridges, too small and too large. This is in keeping with a long tradition for everything else they issue.