Why not the 6mm cartridges? Article link

[Potatohead]

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The Next Generation.htm

Ok, im researching which rifle to get next, I have a 5.56 but have doubted that it's the most efficient choice and ran across an interesting article here. For the ADHD folks among us, the first quarter of it will give you the gist.

It validates my concern that the 5.56 is a pea shooter and mentions the need for a new cartridge that bridges the gap between the 5.56 and 7.62 cartridges/calibers. It highlights the deficiencies of the 5.56 (range, lack of incapacitation, suppressive effect is subpar, among others).

Some of you may be familiar with it, this may have already been touched on here as I rarely frequent the Rifle forum. I PMd it to a few of the pros around here and got some interesting comments.

I'm very new to firearms and very, very, new to rifles and their calibers. I'm basing my selection on what I would like to have if our country fell apart, but also, and more importantly, I wonder if our men and women in uniform (LEOs and soldiers) should have a better suited caliber for their tasks?

Remember, we must avoid pulling this to far towards down SHTF avenue.

I am really interested in hearing your thoughts about what the 6mm cartridges offer and any reasons why they shouldnt or havent replaced the 5.56 caliber. (outside of the problems of the NATO countries having to switch over their weapons systems ). Or, am I underestimating the effectiveness of the 5.56? Thanks PH

 

[Jason_W]

I could be wrong, but isn't the primary purpose of modern infantry weapons to suppress the enemy until artillery or an airstrike can be called in?

If so, 5.56 arms should do the job for the most part. Heavier infantry weapons could be issued for mission specific tasks.

Keep in mind that going to a larger round means a significant increase in costs. Even a few pennies more per round becomes significant when you're talking millions or ?billions? of rounds.

 

[M1key]

I still would like to see more AR barrels available again in 6x45 (besides BHW). But that's just me...

Carbine or middie length, 16 inch, chrome-lined, 4150 steel...ah well.

M

 

[Savage99]

Adhd ??

 

[witchhunter]

Tater, we need to know what you are going to be using this for. What ranges, and energy levels are you considering. How much are you going to shoot it? Hunting? Targets? etc. If you are looking for a military type use, here are several already employed by our armed forces, .223, .308, lots of civilian choices in between.

 

[MarshallDodge]

I'm very new to firearms and very, very, new to rifles and their calibers.

Well then it is time to get out and get some good training.
Bullets are not magic, no matter what caliber they are. It is up to the shooter to place the shot where it needs to be.

Bullet issues aside. If you are going to be engaging targets out beyond 400 yards, then you probably want a sniper or designated marksman who has the knowledge and training, as well as the weapon system to engage longer range targets.

 

[InkEd]

The 5.56 is a bit weaker than ideal but the logistical and financial cost of switch would be a nightmare. As with most things in the military, it is "good enough" but not the best.

 

[mr.trooper]

JEBUS - you have 2,600 posts in under a year? And you are new?

Dont let goofy internet articles determine what you think about weapons or their ammunition. You will spend years rethinking and reprograming all that junk in your mind. In the mean time you will end up being one of THOSE guys who post "HELP ME I BROKE MY PISTOL" threads, because the hammer fell when you engaged the decocker.

Go shoot. Read stuff from real people, not faceless webzines and gun blogs. Take everything you read here (and on any other gun forum) with several grains of salt.

 

[The_Next_Generation]

This:

Bullets are not magic, no matter what caliber they are. It is up to the shooter to place the shot where it needs to be.

However, I do disagree with:

Bullet issues aside. If you are going to be engaging targets out beyond 400 yards, then you probably want a sniper or designated marksman who has the knowledge and training, as well as the weapon system to engage longer range targets.

I make repeated hits at ~510yds on a 14"x24" plate with my Mosin Nagant and K31 using the standard battle sights with surplus ammo. I think that the notion that soldiers are incapable of engaging man-sized targets at this range is misguided. If zeroed at 400 yards, a 55gr FMJ BT round will hit 10" high at 200 yards, and 20" low at 510. I don't understand how you couldn't make a hit on this type of target and range with this type of zero. Of course wind and adrenaline are huge factors, but I don't think it would require a sniper to engage a man at 500yds. Especially since it seems there are a lot of soldiers out there running ACOG-type optics that eliminate the challenges associated with using iron sights.

Bear in mind, I am not saying the .223/5.56 would be my choice at extended ranges. Having shot my AR15 and Mosin next to a buddy's AR in 7.62x39 at 600 yards, I can tell you that the .223 REALLY runs out of steam compared to the 7.62 rounds. Still, I can carry a lot more 5.56 ammo than I can 7.62. I think that at 600 yards the 5.56 can still put a hurting on whatever you are shooting at, and that for now its good enough. Where I live in WA you have to go a long ways before you could be in a situation where a 600yd shot would present itself. Because of this, I think the military figures that for most firefights the 5.56 is adequate.

 

[eldon519]

I read all the 5.56 being weak articles and bought into it for awhile until an Army Ranger friend started telling me stories, and it seemed like an OK moment to ask since he had brought up the war stories and whanot rather than me asking out of the blue and churning up bad memories. Anyway, he said he had no problems with 5.56 effectiveness except for a time when they came under fire from a heavy machine gun like a DShK or ShVAK and then psychologically he wished he had a bigger gun. He had several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan including some door kicking in Fallujah if I recall correctly. At least for me, that made me less concerned with what people make up on the internet. It was good enough for him, and he was an American hero in my book.

 

[eldon519]

Oh yeah, and part of the issue with 5.56 at extended ranges is that the FMJ bullets no longer fragment and don't cause as much damage. Luckily LEO don't have to use FMJ and even the military has started using OTM bullets to some degree which fragment a bit more easily. As a civy, there is basically no realistic scenario where I would ever have to fire an AR-15 at a human aggressor at 100 yards or more. Even 100 yards is basically a 0% chance. If I ever had to use it, it would almost certainly be across-the-room distance or the like.

 

[Potatohead]

The 5.56 is a bit weaker than ideal but the logistical and financial cost of switch would be a nightmare. As with most things in the military, it is "good enough" but not the best.

Fair enough.

 

[Potatohead]

Adhd ??

Was talking to myself as much as anyone, didnt mean to offend.

 

[Potatohead]

I could be wrong, but isn't the primary purpose of modern infantry weapons to suppress the enemy until artillery or an airstrike can be called in?

If so, 5.56 arms should do the job for the most part. Heavier infantry weapons could be issued for mission specific tasks.

Keep in mind that going to a larger round means a significant increase in costs. Even a few pennies more per round becomes significant when you're talking millions or ?billions? of rounds.

I guess, but it talks about how the Taliban engages our infantrymen outside the range of the 5.56 and exits the area before air support can get there.

Also that it did not work very well regarding suppressive fire. I dont think they give any stats or cited specific situations here though.

And basically that the 5.56 isn't really ideal for the short barrels that the infantry carry. This is probably old news to you guys.

 

[Potatohead]

As a civy, there is basically no realistic scenario where I would ever have to fire an AR-15 at a human aggressor at 100 yards or more. Even 100 yards is basically a 0% chance. If I ever had to use it, it would almost certainly be across-the-room distance or the like.

you're probably right.

 

[Potatohead]

Bullets are not magic, no matter what caliber they are. It is up to the shooter to place the shot where it needs to be.

Agreed, but that's not really what Im getting at. Hard to place shots if you're always out of range.

 

[Sam1911]

Yeah, pretty much that: Of all the many and varied things that soldiers and commanders and armies complain about and wish they had a better version of, right now the lethality of our standard infantry weapons is really -- REALLY -- not at the top of the list. There will be a thousand stories of how "if it had just been a hair larger/heavier bullet ..." but for the most part, the things our soldiers shoot at these days either leave or die, and the benefits of a bullet 0.44mm larger in diameter are probably much greater in the imagination than in any sort of practice.

If the money it would take to swap over just the barrels of all those M-16s and M-4s to 6x45 (or whatever) could be used to give the troops better/lighter armor, a better navigation/targeting system in a tank, a more reliable comms system (that one is HUUUUUGE), a more survivable troop carrying vehicle, better battlefield surveillance systems, a more fuel-efficient logistics vehicle, HECK, anything at all to combat/reduce/prevent TBI, or (if we want to talk about something IMPORTANT?) a better psy-ops/civil affairs system to help cut off insurgency before it begins ... ANY of those things are far more important.

 

[Potatohead]

JEBUS - you have 2,600 posts in under a year? And you are new?

Dont let goofy internet articles determine what you think about weapons or their ammunition. You will spend years rethinking and reprograming all that junk in your mind. In the mean time you will end up being one of THOSE guys who post "HELP ME I BROKE MY PISTOL" threads, because the hammer fell when you engaged the decocker.

Go shoot. Read stuff from real people, not faceless webzines and gun blogs. Take everything you read here (and on any other gun forum) with several grains of salt.

Sorry, Im all in. It's the only way to go.

But yes I wish I could shoot more.

 

[Potatohead]

Yeah, pretty much that: Of all the many and varied things that soldiers and commanders and armies complain about and wish they had a better version of, right now the lethality of our standard infantry weapons is really -- REALLY -- not at the top of the list. There will be a thousand stories of how "if it had just been a hair larger/heavier bullet ..." but for the most part, the things our soldiers shoot at these days either leave or die, and the benefits of a bullet 0.44mm larger in diameter are probably much greater in the imagination than in any sort of practice.

If the money it would take to swap over just the barrels of all those M-16s and M-4s to 6x45 (or whatever) could be used to give the troops better/lighter armor, a better navigation/targeting system in a tank, a more reliable comms system (that one is HUUUUUGE), a more survivable troop carrying vehicle, better battlefield surveillance systems, a more fuel-efficient logistics vehicle, HECK, anything at all to combat/reduce/prevent TBI, or (if we want to talk about something IMPORTANT?) a better psy-ops/civil affairs system to help cut off insurgency before it begins ... ANY of those things are far more important.

Far more important than the bullets that are in our soldiers guns? I disagree.

I realize you guys are more experienced than me though, and Im not being snide when i say that, nor am I trying to start a fight here.

 

[Potatohead]

I read all the 5.56 being weak articles and bought into it for awhile until an Army Ranger friend started telling me stories, and it seemed like an OK moment to ask since he had brought up the war stories and whanot rather than me asking out of the blue and churning up bad memories. Anyway, he said he had no problems with 5.56 effectiveness except for a time when they came under fire from a heavy machine gun like a DShK or ShVAK and then psychologically he wished he had a bigger gun. He had several tours in Iraq and Afghanistan including some door kicking in Fallujah if I recall correctly. At least for me, that made me less concerned with what people make up on the internet. It was good enough for him, and he was an American hero in my book.

Interesting. And those are that people that would know. I'm just seeking info here.

 

[Potatohead]

Oh yeah, and part of the issue with 5.56 at extended ranges is that the FMJ bullets no longer fragment and don't cause as much damage.

This makes a lot of sense. Yes I think many would agree that if they could have fragmenting or hollow point it would go along way towards improving the situation. If was a skiff we'd all be sailing too, though.

 

[Jason_W]

Abandoning the obsolete rule against soft point ammo could help the terminal performance of the 5.56.

It's somehow cool to immolate the enemy with white phosphorus, but not shoot them with a JSP bullet. Go figure.

 

[Potatohead]

No doubt. That's a whole 'nother story that is really irritating. Maybe we should just throw darts at them!

 

[Sam1911]

Far more important than the bullets that are in our soldiers guns? I disagree.

Yes. Because bullets in our soldiers' guns isn't REALLY how we win wars, or even how we bring the boys home safely. A vital factor? Of course, but what we have now covers us pretty well, there.

But wars are no longer fought from trenches over a no-man's-land. Our doctrine has changed completely to "maneuver warfare" which says that group A pins the enemy down with some rifle and machine gun fire while group B moves around their flanks and kills them at close range (often with grenades, machine guns, etc.). Or, even more crucially, fire support -- wherein the guys on the ground go out and locate the enemy and then keep them in sight and contained while the Close Air Support and artillery are called in to wipe out their position. These tactics of fighting with indirect means and heavy firepower are why we kill 20:1, 50:1, 100:1 or better, and don't bring home even a fraction of the numbers of KIA or even wounded as the enemy does.

That means all of our forms of support and firepower delivery are WAAAAAAY more important than whether our infantry ammo is 2 or 3% more or less effective. It really doesn't matter much.

If we could say, "Take this ammo instead and you'll have 50% more EKIAs" it probably would be worth it. But we can't. The biggest factor, by far, in ineffective rifle fire is not hitting the guy at all, and a better bullet can't help with that.

 

[strambo]

I could be wrong, but isn't the primary purpose of modern infantry weapons to suppress the enemy until artillery or an airstrike can be called in?

Way too general of a statement. Further, in many operational environments (particulary in/around populated areas) artillery and close air aren't even an option or available.

First, the idea of shooting at the enemy is to hit them no matter if it is an M4, sniper rifle, grenade launcher or machine gun.

That said, we deliberately employ machine guns in order to deliver high sustained rates of fire to suppress the enemy that don't get hit in order to maneuver on them or disengage. Hitting an enemy is always the best way to suppress them if you can.

The M4s/ M16A4s are for hitting point targets with individual aimed shots while the machine guns are placing controlled bursts.

5.56 does very, very, well with 77gr OTM and civilian available soft points. Changing to something incrementally better at a huge cost isn't worth it. In my own case, I think a 300 BLK would be "better" than my 5.56 AR...but not enough to justify the cost and it could be my or my families' life on the line.

Go down that road and it never stops...pretty soon I have spent $8k in night vision, $1.5k on an IR laser and $3.5k on a suppressed 300 BLK SBR because our lives are worth it. How much better would that be than my current 5.56 SBR with OTM ammo, Aimpoint, and surefire x300 light in a HD scenario?

I don't care about frag range either. If it frags w/in 100yds or so that's plenty. If you can even imagine a scenario where you would be shooting at someone 2-400m out, even in a total societal breakdown, hitting them will seriously affect their ability to rds on you whether the bullet frags or not.

How well could you hit someone 300m out, under combat stress, in the field, after taking a 5.56 to the chest that didn't frag? How much more would a 6mm matter?