Pretend the 223 had never been invented... what caliber for our armed forces?

[rattletrap1970]

6.5x55 Swedish.

Low recoil
Horribly accurate
Lighter than .308
Proven Performance


Oh and that comment about "OMG you picked a commie caliber". Really?? Commies may use it but when it comes to sending lead down range the cartridge doesn't know what it's diameter and length are. If commies had a bullet that would magically leap from your gun and into the bad guy every time, I'd want that one.

 

[jeepguy]

one post said .308 recoil would be too much for women, however in ww2 the rusians issued mosin nagant's to women and they did pretty well. but i thought this whole thread was about if we did not have the .223, so why are we comparing any round to it? it is not an option in this thread, so we can debate about any other rounds in existance but not that one.

 

[kaferhaus]

The "what if" subject of this thread, while entertaining has led me to confirm by belief that many of the members of this site are indeed "mall ninjas" with zero real world experience in having to be shot at, slug through jungles, mountains, deserts or fight in a urban environment.

Wars are not all the same, engagements are not all the same, nor is the terrain or weather.

Any rifle or cartridge has to be a compromise by nature.

My time was over 40yrs ago. I was first issued a M14 which I slugged through the swamps and jungles and mountains of Vietnam. It was a great rifle on the range and a horrible one to actually carry all day long. It was unwieldy, cumbersome and the recoil prevented accurate rapid firing.

I don't recall ever taking a shot at a enemy soldier over 200yds and most were well under 100yds.

The M16 had everything over the M14 as far as utility. Aimed rapid fire was a breeze, it was light, accurate and very ergonomic. I love it, and not one soldier in my unit ever complained about it to my knowledge.

Sure we had nick names for it..... "matty mattel" "mouse gun" etc.

Soldiers have blamed their weapon for misses, bad hits etc. since they were invented.

My biggest laugh always comes from hearing some goober talk about "knock down power".... ain't no such thing. I've seen dozens of people shot on both sides and I've never seen anyone "knocked down" by a rifle bullet unless it was a CNS hit. I've seen VC take numerous torso hits from a M60 and make it back into cover before he bled out. I've seen GIs do the same. we had numerous guys SURVIVE multiple torso shots from AK rounds and I've seen guys die from a leg wound or a shoulder wound.

The only thing that causes DRT is a shot to the brain.

I've seen guys barely wounded that dropped out of the fight and screamed for their momma and other guys gut shot and not even realize they were wounded or dying until after the fight...

You figure it out. No one else has.

 

[Snowdog]

kaferhaus, I'm sure most of us will agree with you on your assessment of the 7.62 vs 5.56 NATO for the very reasons you mention.
I believe the 5.56 NATO is a perfectly capable and logical choice for most encounters.

If I read the OP right, I think it's more of a fun "what if" scenario if the 5.56 was out of the picture.

 

[Tirod]

better BC in most cases : Ballistic coefficient contributes very little to the average soldiers effective range - 500m. Most shots are well under that.

superior penetration: Smaller caliber bullets at higher speeds can have better penetration.

knock a BG over better: Complete mall ninja BS. Getting an effective hit does the job, there's no gain if the enemy isn't incapacitated and gets back up.

a gut shot will work if it has to : ANY intermediate round can do that.

less affected by wind: A generalization based on size but controlled by mass, ie weight.

superior terminal ballistics: No, bullet construction is more important,

defeats body armor faster , No, smaller diameter bullets are demonstrated to be better at penetration. It also has to do with construction, the entire point of steel inserts.

more OOMPH and can take out cars if needed. More mall ninja BS. The velocity of a moving car will keep it moving, a 168 grain bullet can't stop a 3200 pound car.

This is fun. Anybody got some more ignorant BS?

If the .222 varmint round hadn't been available, some other would have based on a 40+ mm long case with sub 7mm bullet. While the .30 was certainly the vogue caliber in the day, .30 intermediate cartridges aren't as high speed, flat trajectory, or as long ranged as smaller ones. That's the whole point to having the bullet in an appropriate ratio of caliber to propelling gas charge. If all we wanted to do was downsize, the .30 Remington was already there, and a known ballistic dropper, just like the .30-30 or 7.62x39. The military wanted something flatter and faster.

.280 Brit, .276 Pederson, 6.5G, 6.8SPCII, whatever, it would likely have wound up looking like that. They all fall into the same pie plate sighted and shot to 500m.

 

[kaferhaus]

I have to add that all of us thought the M14 was the "cat's meow"..... until we got the M16... some guys were hesitant at first.... until they shot it..

Not getting your brains beat out and being able to see the effect (or lack there of) of your shot is a bigger plus than many may expect.

 

[Jason_W]

I'm guessing cost has a lot to do with armed forces sticking with the 5.56 for most infantry. An increase in the cost to manufacture a round, even if only a few pennies, can really add up over millions of rounds.

 

[otomik]

So again 6-6.5mm 90-115grs, at around 2800-3000fps. A very useful bump up in power/penetration/lethality, but still should be portable enough to be practical.

It is revealing that in the seventies when the US military couldn't figure out how to make a 5.56mm tracer they came up with the 6mm SAW. In the end they figured out a way to make 5.56mm tracer and agreed with Churchill as he remarked on the British .280 cartridge in that in many circumstances it is better to have a common cartridge than the best cartridge.

but in that circumstance where they had a do-over in the SAW program they found a 6mm cartridge was something that could reach out while still allowing soldiers to carry a lot of ammo.

 

[cracked junior]

6.8mm spc. perfect between 223 and 308. fits in standard ar platform. only 5 rounds less in a 30 round 223 magazine.

 

[Eb1]

Anyone who has shouldered an M14 on Full Auto knows that you will just end up shooting the moon by the time the magazine is empty. That is the facts.

 

[bannockburn]

If looking back in time for a decent compromise between 5.56mm. and 7.62mm., then I would have gone with something along the lines of the 6.5mm. Swedish round. In todays world, my choice of a more modern cartridge would be the 6.8mm. SPC.

 

[sappyg]

if not the 223 then what? the only other round that i know of that was developed for millitarty consideration was the 222 remington magnum. one can only guess as to why the 222 RM lost out. probably due to a slightly higher cost over the 223.
in stead of taking the 'what if' route with the 223 i'll take a slight turn. what will replace it? eventually that will happen. i think whatever that cartrige may be will be just as dynamic a breakthrough as the 223 in order to be adopted. i've only read spoty articles that the future my lie with plastic cased ammo or caseless ammo as in the case of the HK g11. even if and when this happens the ammo may not require a new rifle nor effect the current 5.56 diameter. if anything it could even go smaller i suppose.

 

[R.W.Dale]

one post said .308 recoil would be too much for women, however in ww2 the rusians issued mosin nagant's to women and they did pretty well. but i thought this whole thread was about if we did not have the .223, so why are we comparing any round to it? it is not an option in this thread, so we can debate about any other rounds in existance but not that one.

The Stalin regeime simply did not care if these persons were equipped in such a way as to be able to survive 1o minutes or fight effectively in the great patriotic war.


How many millions of these women were sent into the meat grinder to never come out so you guys could read about ONE Lyudmila Pavlichenko and think you have a grasp on the absolute horrible and hopeless history of the time. If you send a million out 3 or 4 are bound to survive based purely on the science of probabilities.

This is the US we don't use conscripts and not since the Civil War have we sent solders to battle under the basic assumption by the command that a large portion of them will be slaughtered by the end if the day.

 

[Otony]

How about necking the 6.8mm SPC down to .25 caliber? Or in other words, a shortened .25 Remington. You still have a fairly small bullet that can be made inexpensively, and it could more than duplicate the original research the Army did with the .25 Remington eighty or so years ago, prior to heading off in the direction of the .276 Pederson.

It will fit in an AR magazine, carry more weight than a 5.56, and satisfy the .25 caliber freaks like yours truly.

 

[Dr_2_B]

This has been an interesting discussion (with, of course, a little cross-chatter). I enjoy looking at actual pics of the rounds listed and reading about the velocity, energy, etc. Some of these rounds I'd never heard of.

 

[harmon rabb]

why do so many people like those little bitty bullets?

Uh, go fire a .308 back to back with a .223 then get back to me. .223 has very little recoil and very little muzzle rise. Way easier to get back on target.

Same goes for the russian rounds. Fire an ak-47 back to back with an ak-74. I have barely fired my '47 since getting my '74. The '74 is just a lot more fun, and a lot easier to bring back on target quickly.

 

[Dups]

My theory is, the military would have dabbled with the smaller calibers for a bit longer, and settled on something closer to a 24 caliber... 6mm is a vastly superior caliber over the 22 for a myriad of reasons. Bullet SD, BC, etc. mabey even adopted the .243 win... or a variant of it.

 

[kaferhaus]

My theory is, the military would have dabbled with the smaller calibers for a bit longer, and settled on something closer to a 24 caliber... 6mm is a vastly superior caliber over the 22 for a myriad of reasons. Bullet SD, BC, etc. mabey even adopted the .243 win... or a variant of it.

Nope, still got the weight and bulk of the ammo going against it. Requires a bigger rifle too...

And the 6MM is not "vastly superior" to the .224 for the job that needs to be done.

And don't go quoting a bunch of ballistics as it doesn't matter. the round we use now is working just like it was supposed too.

Is it perfect? No, but neither is anything else.

 

[Kachok]

OK let me de-bunk a bunch of myths here.
1st off larger caliber bullets experence the same wind drift as smaller caliber bullets of the same BC.
2nd some barriers are better penatrated by high speed smaller projectiles, rather then by slower heavier ones, it is just the nature of phisical matter, my puney .17HMR will zip right through lv 3 body armor while a 44 mag gets stoped cold. The flip side of that my 17 HMR will only penatrate about 12" into a game anamal while 44 mag will blow a crater through even a large feral hog with ease. Hard cast 44 cal can penatrate 30"+ of ballistic gel. Thinner but stronger barriers are mostly weak to speed, and thicker barriers like sand bags or trees are beaten by the momentum of heavier calibers.
3rd larger calibers with higher mass are much more damaging to soft tissue then smaller lighter given the same bullet construction. If the milltary 7.62x51 was designed to yam/fragment in the first 4" like the 5.45 and 5.56 we would be picking up the bad guys with a mop, but would not have the ability to blast bad gus through trees and the sort. Anyone that doubt this statement just check out the track record of the .30 cal 175gr SMKs they yaw very nicley and cause VERY VERY NASTY wounds, so bad that hunters will only make the mistake of shooting a deer with them once, the meat damage is beyond excessive.
If you ballence caliber, mass, throat errosion, momentum, recoil, wepon weight, external and terminal ballistics, and defeating barriers both hard and soft a great ballence would be a 7mm-08. However I tend to think that having special wepons for different situations is ideal. Full auto compact 10mm for urban warfare, and a full sized 260 rem for open feild/desert warfare.

 

[hirundo82]

If the .222 varmint round hadn't been available, some other would have based on a 40+ mm long case with sub 7mm bullet. While the .30 was certainly the vogue caliber in the day, .30 intermediate cartridges aren't as high speed, flat trajectory, or as long ranged as smaller ones. That's the whole point to having the bullet in an appropriate ratio of caliber to propelling gas charge. If all we wanted to do was downsize, the .30 Remington was already there, and a known ballistic dropper, just like the .30-30 or 7.62x39. The military wanted something flatter and faster.

.280 Brit, .276 Pederson, 6.5G, 6.8SPCII, whatever, it would likely have wound up looking like that. They all fall into the same pie plate sighted and shot to 500m.

I'd tend to agree with this. The military wanted a smaller, flatter-shooting, lower-recoiling cartridge than the 7.62x51.

I suspect that had 5.56x45 not come around the developers would have started necking down the 7.62, leading to something like .280 Rem or 7mm-08. That probably would have been shortened to something resembling 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC--maybe even the .280 British.

 

[AR27]

7.62x51mm

 

[Harley Quinn]

Low recoil is the key now and the smaller bullet is a killer to be honest... They went with it because it seemed the right thing to do for many reasons supply and able to carry many in the field...

Good choice, it is only those who still cling to 06 or 45 mentality that really keep it alive...

Can't imagine trying to fight with all the old weapons now to be honest...

I suspect that had 5.56x45 not come around the developers would have started necking down the 7.62, leading to something like .280 Rem or 7mm-08. That probably would have been shortened to something resembling 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC--maybe even the .280 British.

243 is a winner if necking down the 7.62...

 

[Kachok]

243 due to it's overbore nature it would burn through machine gun barrels many times faster then the 308 or 7mm-08 would. Other then that the 243 loaded with an 85-95gr boat tail spritzer would be an exellent choice for low recoil high damage.

 

[WYcoyote]

Great question. It's been said before me, .260 Rem.

 

[janobles14]

.243 remington. ive thought this for quite a while!