Interesting. If 7.62 NATO is being used, how many rounds on average would achieve an immediate stop?
-TL
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm
- Thread starter ed308
- Start date
- Status
-TL
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Entrenched brass defending their particular kingdoms was a common thing during the period between the wars. IF the Marines were so convinced the semi auto rifle was unsuited, why then did they accept the Johnson??
The same "we know best" attitude in the brass of all services continued until the actual combat lessons of WWII finally convinced enough of them to accept reality over their cherished notions of what was best.
A certain Marine Corp board might have gone thumbs down on the Garand, but the troops were happy to get them when they did. They didn't fight with Springfields because they turned down Garands, (that idea is bunk), they fought with Springfields as long as they did because there were no Garands to give the Marines until after much of the Army got theirs.
And, there were some Army units that fought the entire war with Springfields, never being issued Garands.
When Army units went to support and relieve the Marines on Guadalcanal, a lot of Army Garands and their clipped ammo was liberated by Marines, since they hated it so much....
Troops on the sharp end will use what they are issued and whatever they can get their hands on that works. If something works better than their issue equipment, they will get as much of that on their own as they can, and hide it from the brass, if they have to.
I'm sure the troops will do the same with the 6.8mm when they get their hands on it. They'll use it, and if it works as advertised, they'll praise it. If it doesn't, they figure some kind of work around, bitch about it, and continue to march.
jetinteriorguy
New member
I would tend to think that after the Marines experience with mass head on attacks on Guadalcanal that a semi auto rifle looked pretty good considering the much higher rate of fire it afforded.
Being that Guadalcanal was the proving ground for modern machine gun theory used in US doctrine, the Marine Corps absolutely understood this lesson. Note I didn't say machine gun theory was born there... but it advanced by leaps and bounds. Belt fed crew serves achievinf enfilade fire on the flanks of a line, with clearly defined FPLs set by traverse stops, proved very effective in making Japanese banzai charges suicide missions.
The USMC does not get everything right. I'm proud of the Corps but the automatic preference for tradition has likely influenced the fielding of inferior equipment over the years. That, and the Marine Corps gets less than 10% of the DOD budget... so the branch has absolutely made use of the cheapest options and hand-me-downs from the Army over the years.
You do realize that the reason it has moved on from the question of "Is this the rifle to adopt?" to the question, "What equipment to support the new rifle and doctrine do we need to modify?" is due to the fact the warfighters liked it.
The procurement process was changed after September 11th and further refined under the Trump Administration. The input of the warfighter's is almost from day one before the concept becomes a blueprint.
That is the whole reason what we called "widgets" are constantly flying down the hallway to put in your ruck.
https://www.army.mil/article/243184/army_modernizes_relationship_with_industry_partners
This isn't McNamara "Whiz Kids" or some top down driven programs like in the past. The ideas flow both ways and the end user is brought in almost from day one.
I have never seen anyone get up after being shot center mass with one round of 7.62mm NATO m80 ball. That is not scientific and in no way proof of anything outside of my experience. We did not use 7.62mm in the house usually.
Game Rangers in South Africa and Nigeria use it for protection from both dangerous game and poachers.
If you run the math, it has significantly higher energy than 5.56mm NATO throughout the envelope. We still trained using single shots with 7.62 NATO vs double taps using 5.56mm. In those terms, your 30 round magazine is really just 15 targets while your 20 round 7.62mm NATO rifle is 20 targets.
Depending on the equipment is absolutely does make up the difference. The 8 rounds was average for an immediate stop at CQB distances using 55 grain out of a SBR.
Change any of those parameters and double tapping brings the lethality to an acceptable rate. You still do not have the ability to effectively engage as many targets to achieve the same lethality rate, defeat emerging threat body armor and your ability to engage multiple targets is degraded compared to 7.62mm NATO or 6.8 Fury in any circumstances.
It takes less time to fire one round than it does two, even double tapping. Controlled Pairs is even longer to engage multiple targets. Single shot being one shot and two sight pictures including follow thru. Double tapping being two shots and two sight pictures including follow thru. Controlled pairs being two shots and four sight pictures.
Last edited:
That is an interesting number, but its only a number, and worse, its a average number. First off, simply using the math of averages, it implies that there were "immediate stops" that only took 1 round, and "immediate stops" that took 16 rounds.
Next point is that (I think) the number is distorted, because we have no idea of the number needed, only what was used.
Further adding to things is that the weapons used were select fire low recoil with plenty of magazine capacity.
In the "8 round average" how many of the shots were full auto bursts?? Were all the rounds fired counted to come up with that 8 round average? Or were only hits counted?? Or only hits in vital areas??
It reminds me of one comedian's bit about "I don't know how many bouncers it takes to throw me out of a bar, but they used 6.
Simply stating that "it took" X number of rounds on average, alone without any additional data to determine how the number was derived is essentially null data.
There was no full auto and each shooting was the subject of a DA6 investigation. It was SOP to do a DA6 for every shoot the unit made in the GWOT. Not with the intention of going after the Operator but rather to show whom he killed was in fact, a bad guy.
Generally hits were counted but that being said, all flyers are investigated and having a flyer in training was rare. It was always a discussion and a learning point for all.
Only hits to an immediate stop. It is not rocket science nor does anyone care if the first shot is fatal but the target is not stopped.
This isn't infantry combat and suppressive fire use. There were generally innocents on the targets or the possibility of innocents so we were ALWAYS target selective as in a scalpel not a broadsword.
That number came out of that data for our first tour for the shoots using 55 grain. 77 grain did not have the lethality issue. Where it went from there I do not know but I do know that the Army conducted a series of controlled testing and determined the same thing resulting in changes to Regular Army Training.
With the exception of that first tour, I was never again issued 55 grain ammunition for combat.
Last edited:
First off, who on earth used 55gn during the GWOT? Was it M193?
Second, there are literally hundreds of thousands of Americans who are veterans of the GWOT. Sure, plenty of them lived in the motor pool, the TOC, did nothing but pull time as guard, and generally never left the wire. Very many of them did leave the wire, and no one person has a monopoly on calling danger close FFE missions, clearing mud huts with the Muj shooting at you from inside, shooting Muj at CQB distances, applying tourniquets to a guy who is freshly missing a leg, and picking up fingers and toes of what was your friend 30 minutes earlier.
I've seen more than 1, 2, or 10 Muj shot at CQB distances, though not always indoors. Of all that were shot with only 5.56, all but 2 that I recall folded like a sack of potatoes with a 2-4 of rounds of m855 center mass. The 2 that didn't fold instantly decided they were not enemy combatants after all (despite meeting that definition prior to being shot). 1 died within moments, the other ultimately lived.
I've no doubts there were enemies shot a number of times that continued to fight. That wasnt my personal experience, but ive no doubt it happened. There are stories of this going on for time memorial. There are plenty of stories of Marines and Soldiers being shot by battle rifle calibers in WW2 and continuing the fight. Same with the Japs and Germans taking 30-06 in the chest and continuing to pose a threat. The average 8 Rounds required to stop a threat at CQB distance is not at all my experience in Iraq or Afghanistan.
All this, but I'm still for a more effective round than 5.56. The chief complaint with 5.56, in terms of lack of lethality, was in distance engagements in Afghanistan. I was only involved in a couple of those, and crew served machine guns and mortars carried the day both times. A skilled mortarman with a m224 in handheld is the bees knees for 300-500 yard engagements on open terrain, or from one hillside to the next.
The simple answer was that the Marine Corps wasn't opposed to semi-auto rifles per se. There was a concern of fire discipline, but the Marine Corps received an even smaller portion of the DOD budget then than they do today. They also had resumed the role of the tiny expeditionary force that they had been pre ww1 between the wars. Before Belleau Wood, the Corps claim to fame was putting down the boxer rebellion. Even after WW1, there was no expectation that the Corps would become the fighting force it ultimately did morph into. Of note, General Lejeune did focus heavily on amphibious landing doctrine. Its possible that this also played a role in the affection for bolt action weapons. That is mere speculation on my part, but honestly in 1930 I could see why commanders of troops required to swim to the fight might be skeptical of the new fangled semi-autos for fear of reliability issues. Also, the USMC is quite used to using hand-me-downs. ESPECIALLY prior to the GWOT. It may be more a fact that they were content enough with the Springfields as there were other budgetary fish to fry during the era, coupled with the belief that bolt actions may prove more reliable when landing on a contested beach. All branches of the service have made trade offs as money isn't finite.
Regardless, the Corps' belief that the Springfield was adequate was quite wrong and quickly abandoned. The rest is, as they say, history.
I have to disagree with this, a little bit. I don't think that the belief the Springfield was adequate was wrong in any way.
Every major military went into WWII with a 5 shot bolt action as the primary infantry arm. (other than the British, who had 10 shot bolt actions)
There were a great many lessons learned from Guadalcanal, among them are if you can do better than adequate, you should.
Another of the big lessons was how poorly many pre-war ideas held up in combat. The firepower of the Garand was a clear force multiplier, the big reason we were transitioning to them.
But the Marines fought our first land campaign of WWII before they got Garands. They went to war with what they had, knowing it was adequate, and, they won. Waiting until we could equip them with the best we had wasn't an option. When we could do better, we did.
I find the average of 8 rounds a bit shocking. However, it’s common for many incidents to require many shots to incapacitate a person irrespective of the caliber.
Luckily, I have not had to combat a person directly with a 5.56 weapon. I have been fired upon and have returned fire with M2 and M60
I have seen the immediate aftermath of and 5.56 can be quite gruesome.
As davidsog points out, that doesn’t mean the people were quickly incapacitated.
I also don’t have experience with persons wearing body armor. Combat seems to have evolved in recent times, body armor is a pretty new thing in relation to combat in the last 100 years or more. There was a time that 5.56 was “effective enough” taking into account the economy of logistics and carrying capacity of the soldier. Being able to have 20-30 rounds in each magazine for an individual weapon was a huge leap forward.
Personal beliefs and and experiences aside, our soldiers deserve the best possible equipment. However, replacing all we have already used since the 1903 is a pretty tall order to fill.
Many of us long time veterans have our doubts that a viable replacement will happen soon, but we all hope it does.
There is some chest-thumping going on at some level here, but I cannot also in good conscience discount the experience of those who had more face to face contact with enemy combatants.
Luckily, I have not had to combat a person directly with a 5.56 weapon. I have been fired upon and have returned fire with M2 and M60
I have seen the immediate aftermath of and 5.56 can be quite gruesome.
As davidsog points out, that doesn’t mean the people were quickly incapacitated.
I also don’t have experience with persons wearing body armor. Combat seems to have evolved in recent times, body armor is a pretty new thing in relation to combat in the last 100 years or more. There was a time that 5.56 was “effective enough” taking into account the economy of logistics and carrying capacity of the soldier. Being able to have 20-30 rounds in each magazine for an individual weapon was a huge leap forward.
Personal beliefs and and experiences aside, our soldiers deserve the best possible equipment. However, replacing all we have already used since the 1903 is a pretty tall order to fill.
Many of us long time veterans have our doubts that a viable replacement will happen soon, but we all hope it does.
There is some chest-thumping going on at some level here, but I cannot also in good conscience discount the experience of those who had more face to face contact with enemy combatants.
I can't argue with any of that. Germans had the k98s, japs had the type 99s, the brits had the Lee Enfield... and even the US Army fielded significant quantities of Springfields at the onset of ww2. The Marine Corps was not outgunned at the onset of the pacific war. But...
Thank God for the Garand. Crew served weapons superiority (along with effective doctrine to employ those weapons) is probably a much greater force multiplier than the standard infantry rifle. But this isn't an excuse for not upgrading an "adequate" (mediocre) standard infantry rifle. The 8-round semi-auto Garand was a game changer when compared against the 5-round bolt action Springield.
With all that said, that's not a decree that Sig and it's wonder rifle shooting 6.8 fury will be the same upgrade that the Garand was over the 1903. There are logistics involved. At current time, we are drastically behind in 155mm artie round production. That needs resolving asap. Our javelin inventory also needs desperate attention. Ukraine has received a significant amount of our Hi-Mar ammunition. Modernizing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles rank high on our priority list. Our upkeep of many basic ground war weapons outside of small arms is, I hope at least, perceived by top brass as a much higher priority than giving Sig billions of dollars.
The world we live in today is drastically different than it was back in 2018 and 2019. The notion of forever peace was an illusion. The world is a tinderbox waiting to ignite, and if we can't convince 18-23 year Olds to be hard men, do their civic duty, and join the military, talks of the next generation rifle are mere academic.
Last edited:
When was it not??
The only real difference I see today is that travel times are shorter and communication is instant, world wide.
This allows for an increase in the speed of things happening, but its still the same basic things it has always been.
Pride, greed, arrogance, envy, hate, the haves vs. the have-nots, the idea that might makes right, vengeance, the "need to do God's work" (zealotry for any cause) all these and many more are still operating the same way they have been since the stone age, its just that today's tech makes things faster and easier in most cases.
One would hope so, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. If you talk to the people actually doing the work, repairing and maintaining our stuff, you'll get a different answer than what you read in the mainstream press or in reports from military brass that get released to the public.
Zealotry is the ultimate Red Herring, as most folks who have started wars in the name of God were either total charlatans who deliberately misinterpreted scripture and used said misinterpretation as a means to manipulate others to do their bidding in pursuit of one of the actual prime motivations for war/murder that you listed.
If you need a scapegoat for war, try the Devil. Or if you wish to vilify any particular creed as being distinctively motivational towards warfare, try Nihilism.
If you need a scapegoat for war, try the Devil. Or if you wish to vilify any particular creed as being distinctively motivational towards warfare, try Nihilism.
First of all, there was no such thing as "Regular Army" on the ground engaged in combat in that first tour. It wasn't until sometime after Objective Rhino was taken that anything moved from Uzbekistan to Afghanistan to even have the opportunity to fire a round in anger.
We had M855 and M193, standard issue ball ammunition at the time for the M4. The word came down fairly quickly to unload the M855 and use M193 until we got the 77 grain. The follow on study by Aberdeen confirmed our results no matter which ammunition you chose. It was a function of the velocity and stability of the round at that bullet weight not the composition of the bullet.
- Status