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

[-v-]

If the .223 wasn't adopted, probably another 5.5-6.5mm round would have been, perhaps with a bit more case taper to improve reliability - basically the love child of 5.56 and 5.45, with a maybe a little 7.62x39 flavor.

+1 on 200m is a realistic combat engagement range. Its easy to put rounds at 600 or 800 yards into paper bulls eyes that don't move, don't hide in terrain, and don't actively try to end you.

Is the .308 a deadlier round then the .223? In some respects yes, but neither guarantee 1-hit stops. Until we move to phasers or .75cal explosive rocket-propelled bolt launchers for the general infantry (Bonus points to anyone who knows what I am talking about there), the 1 hit-stop will not be reliably achieved.

Honestly, the weapon that's needed to optimize those 500-800 yard engagements in Afghanistan is something that can neutralize enemy personnel behind cover - something that goes boom and sprays lots of shrapnel to ruin lots of peoples' days.

The individual's weapon does not matter that much as far as causing casualties. The things that kill lots of enemies usually require several people to operate, with the individual weapon there to hinder the other side's mobility, and make the enemy an easier target for crew-served weapons.

 

[vmfrantz]

I agree with several other posts saying that bigger calibers would be ok. We won WWII with the 06. Our people don't hump all over the country side like they did back then. Not to mention the average heigth of people were shorter. So yes we can handle a bigger caliber. A 308 or something in the 6mm class would be outstanding.

 

[sappyg]

@ farson, what?

 

[kwelz]

Farson.. What the heck are you talking about.

What are your qualifications? Experience? Who are these mythical former Spetsnaz that you run around with.

 

[AKElroy]

Since the mid-east & eastern block seems to supply all of our potential foes, the 7.62 X 39 would be my choice. Then we would have ammo commonality with our enemies, and could re-supply with their downed impliments & seized caches.

Not kidding. I like the round, I like my AK, and I think it does what is needed on the battlefield. Adopting the round would only lead to more develolpment of better, more accurate platforms.

 

[sappyg]

i don't dissagree with you in the least AKElroy. it's probably cheaper to use what is already there than to field our own flavors. the US could buy AKs for 300 clams a copy all day long and ammo is maybe 1/2 the cost of 5.56.
still, the OP is what would our alternative be if not the 5.56. not a bad answer i think.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Man, six pages into this thing...

The 7.62x51 was a mistake. It is probably too heavy and too powerful for general combat use. But just like we rammed that mistake down NATO's throat, we compounded the problem by ramming the 5.56 down their throats as well. In doing so we went from something excessively large to something marginally adequate. As history is showing us right now, the 7.62x51 will be with us for as long as we have the 5.56 because the mere acceptance of the 5.56 thereby requires we have something bigger on hand. All those 5.56 fanboys saying the 7.62 is obsolete are conveniently ignoring the fact that these rifles are still fielded, by demand, in what appears to be growing quantities. Note also SOCOM dumping the FN 16S, but keeping the 7.62mm 17S. Perhaps some have neglected to consider what modern technology can do with a battle rifle, but having humped all manner of rifles all over some pretty big hills my entire life, I will say unequivocally that personally, I'll take an 8 pound 7.62 battle rifle over an poodle shooter on the planet. While the SCAR-H is far from being general issue, it's existence and acceptance at all is attributed directly to the very real shortcomings of the 5.56.

What we need is a happy medium. Something along the lines of the 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, or 7x43--something that provides less weight and recoil than a full power cartridge, but more range, power, and lethality than a .22 caliber centerfire largely relegated to ground squirrels and coyotes by everyone outside the military with a choice in what they use. Until we do, the "obsolete," heavy .308 is going to remain with us in limited roles to backup our other red-head step-child of a disaster, the 5.56. That is not just the musings of some Chuck Norris wannabe with too much time and hi-speed internet access. That's historical fact.

Until we move to phasers or .75cal explosive rocket-propelled bolt launchers for the general infantry (Bonus points to anyone who knows what I am talking about there),

You either saw that episode of Future Weapons with the AA12 and the explosive rounds, or saw "The Expendables" with the same set up?

 

[sappyg]

so tell us how you really feel MTMilitiaman

 

[kwelz]

Until we move to phasers or .75cal explosive rocket-propelled bolt launchers for the general infantry (Bonus points to anyone who knows what I am talking about there),

Cleanse the Heretic with Bolter and Chainsword

Bolters are a reference to the Warhammer 40k Universe. Probably one of the most over the top Sci-Fi universes out there.


To give others a bit of background.

40K - where the genocidal, xenocidal, fascist, ultraconservative zealots with a morbid fear of technology and an unhealthy fondness for burning things... are the good guys.

 

[farson135]

Azizza- First I never said I hang out with him I just met him on one occasion. Honestly is it so hard to believe that I met a Spetsnaz operative and had a little chat with him. It’s not like these guys are recluses who hide out in Siberia and only show up when they need to kill something. Besides I found him to be a bit off. Especially compared to the other soldiers I met so I am not in as much hurry to see him again as my ranger buddy that I mentioned before. Now he has some good stories to tell. As for my qualifications, for what? I mean what are you asking? My shooting background, my tac training, what?

 

[Daniel Boone]

I think the war in Afganistan and Iraq has taught us one thing, human life is expensive and bullets are cheap.

The .223 was nothing more then a experiment gone wrong.
We had the same problem with rifles in Korea when the North Koreans and Chinese came across the Chosin Reservoir with their heavy winter coats and the bullets they used failed to penetrate their clothing and kill or wound their objective - the enemy.

The call rang out for the military to bring back the M-1 Garand and 30-06 because they needed more power.
The same call to arms rang out when we entered a war zone where the people we were shooting at were not phased by our little BB guns and the Military was crying for us to bring back either the .243 as a stop gap measure or the .308 Winchester and a 50+ year old firearm because they were tired of the enemy over running their positions and attacking them and not being stopped by our lack of firepower.

The .308 Winchester was state of the art when it was introduced in 1952 - as it still is today. A round that is lighter then the 30-06 that delivers the same performance with a 150 gr bullet - which was all the more that it was designed to shoot.

 

[R.W.Dale]

The .308 Winchester was state of the art when it was introduced in 1952 - as it still is today. A round that is lighter then the 30-06 that delivers the same performance with a 150 gr bullet - which was all the more that it was designed to shoot.

The 308 never has been and never will be state of the art, all it did was replicate almost to a T a mauser cartridge that had been around since 1888 that in 1906 got a loading that was almost IDENTICAL to M80 ball

The cartridge? 7.65x53mm Mauser

 

[charlie echo]

I think the war in Afganistan and Iraq has taught us one thing, human life is expensive and bullets are cheap.

The .223 was nothing more then a experiment gone wrong.
We had the same problem with rifles in Korea when the North Koreans and Chinese came across the Chosin Reservoir with their heavy winter coats and the bullets they used failed to penetrate their clothing and kill or wound their objective - the enemy.

The call rang out for the military to bring back the M-1 Garand and 30-06 because they needed more power.
The same call to arms rang out when we entered a war zone where the people we were shooting at were not phased by our little BB guns and the Military was crying for us to bring back either the .243 as a stop gap measure or the .308 Winchester and a 50+ year old firearm because they were tired of the enemy over running their positions and attacking them and not being stopped by our lack of firepower.

The .308 Winchester was state of the art when it was introduced in 1952 - as it still is today. A round that is lighter then the 30-06 that delivers the same performance with a 150 gr bullet - which was all the more that it was designed to shoot.

"... Chuck Norris wannabe..."
Really. And what's wrong with emulating good o' Chuck?

Reliability, accuracy, and penetration are the elements to stop 'em from shooting back. We already have a proven cartridge, classic and modern, the 7.62x51/308, that we already have plenty of.

We don't need more Taliban bragging about the 223 shots they've survived; nor do need need to hear about our M4s jamming under intense siege; nor do we need to hear more about 223 guys sitting on their arse while the select few crew served machine gunners engaging distant Taliban snipers.

I doubt the mostly urban recruits are going to adapt to the 300 Winchester Magnum, the next best cartridge to the 308.

Give these guys more contracts: http://www.smithenterprise.com/products02.html

 

[VA27]

In the early days, Springfield Armory made some M1A's in .243. While not offering much in the way of weight (of ammo or rifle) savings, the .243 would offer 5.56 recoil and trajectory with vastly improved terminal ballistics (over the 5.56 at longer range).

I still regret not buying one. I would also like a SOCOM16 in .358 Winchester.

 

[J_McLeod]

+1 to all the 5.56mm detractors in the thread. Almost everyone that I serve with wants a harder hitting round.

7.62x39mm
7.62x51mm
6.8x45mm
.243

 

[Jaws]

In ww2 a lot of men died shot by small arms. Is depressing that all the lessons learned at the end of the war were ignored by a pig headed attitude of some higher ups that were promoted beyond their competence.

This is what should have been the NATO standard all along instead of the embarasing .308 and .223.

The British .280
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=wtjVf724G7w

 

[HorseSoldier]

The 7.62x51 was a mistake. It is probably too heavy and too powerful for general combat use. But just like we rammed that mistake down NATO's throat, we compounded the problem by ramming the 5.56 down their throats as well.

7.62x51 is definitely not the answer, but I agree that there's a very real debate as to whether 5.56x45 wasn't too far in the other direction -- and whether the right answer circa 1968 is still the right answer today with the proliferation of vastly superior optics, body armor (both as worn by shooter and targets), a movement away from automatic fire in favor of greater precision, etc.

I personally don't think we'll see any change as long as we're shooting brass cased cartridges, but is the LSAT stuff pans out and we switch to some new sort of ammo that might be a very good time to look at optimal caliber. Throughout the 20th century, people seemed to keep coming back to something around 7mm again and again (276 Pedersen, the original pre-war German cartridge for what became the StG-44, 280 British, 6.8 Rem SPC) so maybe someone will actually listen after a century or so of historical footnotes.

All those 5.56 fanboys saying the 7.62 is obsolete are conveniently ignoring the fact that these rifles are still fielded, by demand, in what appears to be growing quantities. Note also SOCOM dumping the FN 16S, but keeping the 7.62mm 17S.

The Mk16 didn't do anything the M4A1 can't do. The Mk17 adds a capability that was lacking -- most everyone in SOCOM divested themselves of M14s a long time ago and so the Mk17 provides a bridge system between the M4 and dedicated sniper guns. There are occasions where you do want a heavier bullet going downrange, they're just relatively uncommon in an individual rifle (and hugely less common than the designers of the cartridge claimed way back in the day).

The .223 was nothing more then a experiment gone wrong.
We had the same problem with rifles in Korea when the North Koreans and Chinese came across the Chosin Reservoir with their heavy winter coats and the bullets they used failed to penetrate their clothing and kill or wound their objective - the enemy.

I think you're point is well made -- insofar as no one has ever managed to replicate the myth of bullets bouncing off Chinese uniforms, you do bring attention to the fact that a huge part of the debate about caliber selection is based on myths and legends.

Truth -- 30 Carbine FMJ ammo doesn't choke in clothes. People have tried to demonstrate it in clothing, in frozen clothing, and every other way that story has been told and it just ain't true. If the round hit, it might not have stopped the bad guy but the truth is most of those stories are based on guys who couldn't put steel on target in the first place. The number of soldiers who've ever had the luxury of a forensic reconstruction of a firefight and a knowledge of what did or did not kill a guy who wasn't immediately DRT is vanishingly small.

Likewise, 5.56x45 kills people a whole lot better than duh intraweb crowd can seem to grasp, and 7.62x51 kills people a whole lot worse than most of the same folks believe. With either, or with any other option for a practical handheld weapon, making the hit is the bigger issue than what you make it with.

 

[HorseSoldier]

In ww2 a lot of men died shot by small arms. Is depressing that all the lessons learned at the end of the war were ignored by a pig headed attitude of some higher ups that were promoted beyond their competence.

This is what should have been the NATO standard all along instead of the embarasing .308 and .223.

The British .280
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&hl=uk&v=wtjVf724G7w

Awesome clip. Though watching it makes me wonder about the feasibility of agitating Congress to have Studler and other officers involved in the 7.62x51 development back then posthumously dishonorably discharged from the US military for incompetence and gross negligence leading to the death of US servicemen.

 

[garyhan]

My ideal cartridge dates to the 1890's: 6.5x55. We could shorten and modernize a bit to .260 Rem.

gary

 

[Hangingrock]

Since we are involved in a protracted war small arms are being continuously evaluated for durability and effectiveness. In my day our load did not consist of the body armor now being utilized. What we had is an iffy proposition with fragmentation and bullet stopping I don’t think so. From experience I preferred the M14 over the M16.

What’s the best caliber no one ever asked me? We used what we were given. The question is almost like mirror – mirror on the wall. Since I’m too old to be even a retread I’ll defer to the current generation.

There is the factor of economics which dictates continued use of what’s currently and has been used for decades now for general usage. I’m just not into what ifs

 

[Tirod]

Up throught the Korean War, and in most of the all out wars fought since, artillery and bomb account for the lions share of casualties. No, the rifle does NOT do that good a job in delivering a mass amount of flying projectiles.

Once again the stunted view of the single marksman shows the limited focus they have on the larger conflict. If an Army needs to decimate large quantities of troops in the field, it's quicker and easier to lob projectiles and bombs. Troops are a dicey proposition, whereas a 155 or larger will create 100% losses in it's impact area. Spread a sheaf over half a grid, the combat force can be rendered ineffective if it's not dug in.

Combat is actually about standoff distance, anything that survives to get within rifle range has only got 500m weapons as it is. Talk about the problems in Afghanistan is actually out of date - the long range sniping was largely done with a crew served weapon, like the Russian .50 MG. Rifles were never the counter answer to that. Another MG or crew served weapon is, and used. As for the .308 being issued, about 5,000 M14's are on the only contract, compared to the 100,000 + M16/M4's in country. It's a fantasy the Army is "going back" to the .308, they are just addressing a need. Exactly why SOCOM is keeping the SCAR-L on the table. The Brits chose differently, and bought an AR10 for themselves, but it's also a Squad level marksman's rifle. They aren't dumping their issue weapons.

The American philosophy of cartridge design shows a historical trend to straighter cases with only as much taper as needed. Functionally, a tapered case requires a curved mag, and curved mag well. For the OP's point, that wouldn't have been adopted. The AR doesn't have a curved mag well. Thirty round mags weren't part of the design, the straight 20 rounder was all there was up to 1968. Don't be quick to blame Stoner for the straight mag well, the original design in .308 was straight mags limited to 20 rounds, and the soldier wasn't going to carry very many. When the blueprint got downsized for an intermediate cartridge, it followed along. Tactics still hadn't accepted the research of putting more rounds downrange.

The .308 advocates still don't get it - the reason we largely dumped the .30 cal battle rifles as a class worldwide is that humans don't like shooting them or carrying the weight. You can't carry as much ammo as you need in battle, and it's overkill in creating casualties. Soldiers won't use the long range capability. .30 cal power cartridges are a combat hindrance. They impede the soldiers ability to shoot, move, and communicate. At the squad level, it's nice to have one, just like having one light MG, or one grenade launcher, or one LAW. To equip every soldier with one doesn't work out as a better solution. We researched going back into the 1930's and the answer comes out the same every time. The Germans and Russians came to the same result.

The .30 x 50mm + may be what one shooter desires, it's obviously not what any Army wants as it's primary fighting rifle, and that is something some apparently are incapable of accepting. Take a long look, the newest .308 battle rifles are either 50 year old designs, or scaled UP from a 5.56. There is nobody buying them 400,000 at time.

It's a niche weapon for a combat team, that's about it.

 

[Bill B.]

7.62x39

Why not?

 

[kaferhaus]

Up throught the Korean War, and in most of the all out wars fought since, artillery and bomb account for the lions share of casualties. No, the rifle does NOT do that good a job in delivering a mass amount of flying projectiles.

Still the same today and has been since the end of the civil war.

In WWI vast majority of casualties were from artillery, and MG fire. In WWII is was artillery, air assault and MG fire. In Vietnam and Korea the same was true.

Today is the same. Indirect fire causes the most deaths.

Very few of our soldiers are being killed or wounded with small arms fire.....

The entire premise of this thread is flawed.

 

[Art Eatman]

And six pages is enough...