Why not the 6mm cartridges? Article link

[itsa pain]

This:

However, I do disagree with:

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.

Yes you can make man size hits at long range as long as it is not a real man who would not be standing in an open field waiting for you to shoot holding a wind flag and a piece of cardboard with the distance between you and him written on it.

 

[Fremmer]

The electronic sights our soldiers are using on their rifles is certainly an interesting development; perhaps they decided that a more effective sighting system was more important than a better caliber.

 

[nathan]

The CHinese Military switched to their propriety 5.8 mm they said its close to the 6 mm. Not much has been written from western sources about is range an effectiveness.

 

[Steve S.]

I carried a 5.56 for the last three years of Vietnam; never wanted anything to do with that weapon sine my discharge. Recently reflected on that belief and purchased a WC Recon in 6.8 SPC - killed a nice, large buck with it this year and the 110 V-max did a great job at about 150 yards. I never had to shoot anything with the 5.56 other than those green pop-up, man targets in basic so I can't speak to 5.56 lethality - I am very pleased with the 6.8.

 

[Potatohead]

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.

Fair enough.

 

[Potatohead]

I carried a 5.56 for the last three years of Vietnam; never wanted anything to do with that weapon sine my discharge. Recently reflected on that belief and purchased a WC Recon in 6.8 SPC - killed a nice, large buck with it this year and the 110 V-max did a great job at about 150 yards. I never had to shoot anything with the 5.56 other than those green pop-up, man targets in basic so I can't speak to 5.56 lethality - I am very pleased with the 6.8.

Thanks Steve.

I would definitely love to hear some more comments on the 6mm cartridges if anyone else has much experience. Thanks everyone, for your time and comments.

 

[cougar1717]

After reading through the entire article, it really doesn't break any new ground.

The problem with the GPMG is that both the gun and its ammunition are very heavy

Heavy recoil in a rifle makes it more difficult to train recruits, reduces accuracy, slows down rapid semi-automatic fire and makes fully automatic fire virtually uncontrollable.

The article compares the light and fast 5.56 to the heavy and powerful 7.62. It states that both calibers are present in today's military, with advantages and shortcomings.

It asks the question (paraphrased) - Can the shortcomings of both be improved by improved ammo? To which it infers - not really.

But then it looks wistfully into the future and asks in Lord of the Rings style: Can't there be "one caliber to rule them all?" At this point, the article becomes scientific and researched promotional material for a new 6.5mm cartridge with ME of 2,600J.

Don't get me wrong, the 6.5mm has a BC advantage, but to use tacticool speak, it would mean the creation of two new platforms.
1) A MG that has been lightened to use the new ammo - otherwise there is no advantage over the 7.62.
2) A carbine/rifle with a chamber length between an AR-15 and an AR-10 because it would need to be longer than a 6.5 Grendel to use the 140gr .264" to get the optimal BC advantage. However, it can't just be the military version of .260 Rem because there is no significant weight advantage in firearms and ammo compared to 7.62.

It's an interesting read to be sure, but acting on the conclusions points to the recommendation of creating a new military caliber with new equipment having an intermediate chamber length.

 

[3212]

OK,PotatoHead.You asked for some one with experience with 6MM.I shoot two .243 rifles.One has a 24 inch barrel and the other a 16 1/2 inch.I'm primarily a deerhunter but some times go through 40 or more rounds at the range several times each summer.They both are more accurate than I am.My 3 shot groups at 100 yds are usually between 2 inches and 3/4 inch.Also the occasional figure 8.I shoot Remington 100 grain core-locts and 100 grain handloaded Sierra Spitzers.With this caliber I have taken between 45 and 50 deer from 50 to 150 lbs.If I miss bone in the chest I get an exit wound.If I hit bone they fragment and tear up the lungs and heart.The military once looked at .243 .I don't know why it was rejected.The deer were taken at ranges from 20 to 270 yards.

 

[Potatohead]

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Nom de Forum]

The exaggeration and volume of comments over the last 50 years about the ineffective terminal ballistics of the 5.56 is quite possibly only exceed by the exaggeration and volume of comments over the last 100 years of the effective terminal ballistics of the .45 ACP in the Shooting Community. Both kill people very well in comparison to any other rifle or pistol cartridge. Neither is at the extreme of effective terminal ballistics. History provides proof this is true. Only undocumented war stories, my uncle Bob stories, and people with an agenda attempt to dispute this.

 

[C-grunt]

I've used and seen the use of 5.56 against Iraqi military personnel and Al Qaeda members. The M855 does have its issues, mainly it's inconsistent yawing. However for the most part it kills bad guys well with good hits.

Going to a slightly larger caliber bullet isn't going to increase combat effectiveness. The main problem with our rifles effectiveness is that your average Soldier/Marine doesn't get enough rifle practice to make good hits in combat. The vast majority of the "5.56 doesn't work" stories come from not hitting the guy in the first place. I've seen this first hand. Some guy who was not a great shot to begin with would take a shot at some running dude 200 meters away and then blame the round when the guy doesn't drop on his face.

On the other hand we have plenty of AARs where guys have dropped bad guys well past 300 meters with the 5.56. My old squad leader who is a SF Weapons Sgt now smoked a dude at over 400 yards with his Mk18 shooting M262. There have been multiple kills with the Mk12 out close to 1k yards.

We could use a better bullet for the 5.56. The USMC is fielding the SOST round and the Army is fielding the M855A1. From what I've read they are working well. There is also the M262 which works VERY well and has longer range.

 

[Nom de Forum]

....... Going to a slightly larger caliber bullet isn't going to increase combat effectiveness. The main problem with our rifles effectiveness is that your average Soldier/Marine doesn't get enough rifle practice to make good hits in combat. The vast majority of the "5.56 doesn't work" stories come from not hitting the guy in the first place. I've seen this first hand. Some guy who was not a great shot to begin with would take a shot at some running dude 200 meters away and then blame the round when the guy doesn't drop on his face........

Ditto. Not just more training, but better training would provide better combat effectiveness than any caliber, bullet, or rifle change.

There is also the problem of unrealistic expectations of terminal ballistic effects. Going back to one of the oldest (1960's) stories about the 5.56 is the tale of hits in the leg tumbling up into the torso with devastating effect. The extremes of silliness about the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the 5.56 know no boundaries.