2damnold4this
New member
Do you agree that when 5.56 doesn't pencil that 5.56 works well in CQB?
Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm
- Thread starter ed308
- Start date
- Status
Do you agree that when 5.56 doesn't pencil that 5.56 works well in CQB?
From one of the above provided links…
Seems like much of the information linked in this thread is actually contradictory to each other, but most of the experts agree that the initial problems occurred in lethality at longer ranges found in Afghanistan.
It is interesting to note that one of the optional cartridges will be for reduced range use. Everyone is being tight-lipped about what the actual projectile construction choices are going to be.
22 inches
As I understand "penciling" that would be any time the bullet does not yaw, tumble, or expand.
The army did switch to the 7.62mm, and the M14 rifle, I'm guessing, well before you were born.
If your point is about why they are going to the new 6.8mm instead of going back to the 7.62mm NATO, I think the main reason is found in the words "going back".
Bureaucracies, especially military ones have an almost irrational fear of their decisions being seen as wrong, and to them, along with many other people, going back is seen as an admission of error. Whether it actually is, or not.
2damnold4this
New member
I think he is pointing out the problems with 62 grain M855 as well as M193. M855, the most common round issued in the WoT before M855a1 came out, can have inconsistent performance.
5.56 won't make a very big wound if it doesn't upset and fragment. In order to upset and fragment in tissue, 5.56 M855 needs a certain baseline velocity and it needs to hit the target with the right yaw angle while it's in flight. At ranges over 300 yards out of a short barrel, it won't be going fast enough. At short range, it still needs the right yaw angles to upset and fragment. If things don't work right, it could start its upset too late and ice pick through the target.
The 77 grain OTM 5.56 is supposed to work more consistently. I don't know if M855a1 works any better than M855.
Davidsog is pointing out a real problem of inconsistency with M855 5.56. Some folks had problems with it and others thought it worked great and both groups were telling the truth.
5.56 won't make a very big wound if it doesn't upset and fragment. In order to upset and fragment in tissue, 5.56 M855 needs a certain baseline velocity and it needs to hit the target with the right yaw angle while it's in flight. At ranges over 300 yards out of a short barrel, it won't be going fast enough. At short range, it still needs the right yaw angles to upset and fragment. If things don't work right, it could start its upset too late and ice pick through the target.
The 77 grain OTM 5.56 is supposed to work more consistently. I don't know if M855a1 works any better than M855.
Davidsog is pointing out a real problem of inconsistency with M855 5.56. Some folks had problems with it and others thought it worked great and both groups were telling the truth.
Without body armor, the use of properly expanding bullets would definitely do the trick, but then they would perform poorly with body armor. Given the fact that the army hasn’t used used bullets DESIGNED to expand, you will never have consistency. I know with 5.56 you will get the ice pick effect or you can have something very gruesome.
We have kinda gotten away with OTM bullets because they aren’t intentionally designed to expand; they were designed for accuracy and they also happen to have an expanding effect.
Now with the 6.8x51, you will have a lot more energy on target. I’m interested in seeing the actual military projectile in ballistic gel. It looks to me that everyone out in the public only has access to SMK clone projectiles.
All of the documentation points to there being several projectiles and loads for different missions. I’m interested in seeing what those end up being.
I like that the new carbine has a side charging feature too.
Overall, this is a great advancement.
We have kinda gotten away with OTM bullets because they aren’t intentionally designed to expand; they were designed for accuracy and they also happen to have an expanding effect.
Now with the 6.8x51, you will have a lot more energy on target. I’m interested in seeing the actual military projectile in ballistic gel. It looks to me that everyone out in the public only has access to SMK clone projectiles.
All of the documentation points to there being several projectiles and loads for different missions. I’m interested in seeing what those end up being.
I like that the new carbine has a side charging feature too.
Overall, this is a great advancement.
We've gone quite a ways down the rabbit hole of "how well the 5.56mm works or doesn't". Its been somewhat amusing, but I see no point in continuing it in this thread.
The Army has said what the new round and rifle are going to be, and said where the first ones are going to go.
Until there are rifles and ammo in the hands of the troops, everything about them is speculation and advertising claims.
From what I've heard, the ammo supplier is still "tinkering" with the round to "get it right" and does not have much (or any) to supply the Army with, at this time.
Until we see the results of the new rifle and round (and tactics) we won't know if reality lives up to the current claims.
The Army has said what the new round and rifle are going to be, and said where the first ones are going to go.
Until there are rifles and ammo in the hands of the troops, everything about them is speculation and advertising claims.
From what I've heard, the ammo supplier is still "tinkering" with the round to "get it right" and does not have much (or any) to supply the Army with, at this time.
Until we see the results of the new rifle and round (and tactics) we won't know if reality lives up to the current claims.
2damnold4this
New member
Fair point.
2damnold4this
New member
Those are good points. We don't know if the new cartridge will be any better at CQB distances than 5.56 or 7.62 M80 ball but I do think we have decent evidence that it will be better than both at medium to long distances and weigh a bit less than 7.62 M80 ball. It seems like it might be better at defeating body armor than 7.62 M80 ball.
If we get a cartridge that weighs less than 7.62 M80 ball and may do everything it can do but slightly better is something worth considering.
Consider? certainly. But also consider the cost vs the benefits.
And some of that cost cannot be yet quantified or calculated. Because the cost of the weapons system includes more than just the cost of the rifles and ammo. Training, manuals, cleaning kits, spare parts (and which ones to focus on ?) and training not just the users but also all the support troops involved, both supply and repair.
All these things need to be figured into the costs, and many of them cannot be determined until after the rifle and round are in general service use.
I have faith the 6.8mm will give better down range results than the 5.56, but I am not so convinced about its superiority to the 7.62 or if the degree of improvement is worth the cost.
Consider this, the 6.8 might be better at penetrating body armor than M80 ball, but is it better than 7.62 AP??
Look at what we did in WWII for example. By later in the war, nearly every BAR gun was fed AP more than anything else, and in some places it was AP only.
If the concern is penetrating as yet unknown body armor in an as yet unknown future conflict, why wouldn't switching to AP be a reasonable (and much cheaper) solution??
Isn't that what the M855 5.56 with its penetrator insert designed to do? Defeat the expected body armor of Warsaw Pact troops in the anticipated WW III?
So, at the moment, we have bought/are buying a rifle and round based on what we are being promised it will do. Once we have the rifles and ammo in hand, and in use, THEN it will be time for further discussions.
^^^This right here. Assuming that just because you did a stint in SOCOM that you get to discount any other relevant experience without knowing what they've done and where they've come from is arrogant, and it's largely why I left this conversation. Especially when we came up with the "900" figure using completely made up on the fly statistics. There's more CMHs given out to plain jane infantry than there are secret squirrels, even in the WOT (though that's to be expected given the sheer volume of plain old infantry). And I happen to also have had the pleasure of being friends with individuals in the Special Operations community (some of which I served with before they apparently became "Real" warfighters), and I've never encountered this type of attitude. Combat arms aren't "support," they are meant to bring the fight to the enemy and destroy them. Support made sure we got paid, transported, fed, patched up, and had equipment that kinda sorta worked. There's more to the military than playing rambo. All the Halo jumps in the world from every member of specops wouldn't slow Russia even a few hours if they decide they want to start steamrolling through Europe. There was far more plain jane infantry during Phantom Fury than SF. One operation alone that ensured that more than "900" actually saw any relevant combat. Heck every unit that cycled through Ramadi from 2005 to 2008 got shot at on pretty much a daily basis, cleared a lot of buildings, took out a lot of Muj.
And all the links that FINALLY were posted were the same links that I had already located. Absolutely none of them said anything about 8 Rounds Average. In fact, the most detailed study provided the following:
No source anywhere for the 8 Rounds Average. And research that suggests that confidence in 5.56 is mixed. I don't think anyone here believes it would be mixed if every Soldier or Marine who engaged someone had to fire 8 Rounds on Average to stop an enemy combatant close up. Again, I've seen a few fold nigh instantly with a double tap.
And don't forget boys and girls, 15 yard kills aren't really CQB if they don't occur inside the house, but out in the courtyard or street! CQB isn't about distance, it's about whether you crossed or buttonhooked going through the fatal funnel you just launched a bang through. Good day everyone.
Last edited:
jetinteriorguy
New member
Let’s see, I’d say an experienced well trained person can squeeze off 8 rounds pretty quickly, let alone multiple shooters aiming at the same target. I don’t know about anybody else but it would take me that long just to realize a threat has been stopped. In reality he may have been stopped at round 2-3-4 or who knows, you just keep squeezing the trigger to be sure.
Double Naught Spy
New member
And they will with the 6.8 as well, maybe only 6 or 7 times instead of 8.
Or, maybe only 4 or 5 times!
The guns are going to be heavier, recoil more, and they'll be carrying fewer rounds of ammo, after all....
don't fixate on the "average of 8 rounds", its one guys experience in one place with his units and what they did. And its not telling us what was needed, its telling us what they used.
The doctrine is shoot, and keep shooting until you recognize that the threat is eliminated. The bad guy might be dead from the first or second round, but take another 3-11 hits (or whatever) before he's down and done and the shooters realize its over. Again, its not that they needed an average of 8 rounds, 8 rounds is the average of what they used.
Ammo is cheap, our lives aren't.
The reduced range cartridge is not for CQB use. It is so the Army does not have to build new training ranges as the new round will damage existing training infrastructure.
The new General Purpose round is also designed for better performance at CQB distances. That requirement is equally important and both are goals the Army recognizes must be achieved.
There seems to be some misunderstanding in the importance of the ability to achieve an immediate stop at CQB distances.
First we have people not understanding the difference between a tactical asset and a strategic asset by attempting to compare the experience of service support and support personnel.
Strategic assets perform strategic missions. High Value Targets are High Value for a reason. The success or failure results in significant changes to the game on the ground. That is not to toot some imaginary horn or diminish the service/sacrifice of others. It is simply a fact.
Two real world examples:
1. The leader of a particularly brutal South American Terrorist organization was captured ending an almost 20 year conflict practically overnight and reducing that organization from large, capable movement teetering on the edge of victory with a significant following to a fringe organization no longer supported by the populous. The objective was his capture and it would not have been possible without the ability to perform an immediate stop to his security elements.
2. 15 Kidnapping victims rescued in the confines of a helicopter. The ability to not achieve an immediate stop is once again catastrophic and critical to mission success. That mission resulted in the terrorist organization moving forward in the peace process with a significantly weaker position resulting in almost a decade of peace and prosperity for the people of that country.
4. Hypothetical mission that is on everyone's mind. Counter-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is a very real possibility in the near future a group of Operators will be faced with entering a target in a population center with the very real possibility of a finger on the button of a Nuclear Device.
You cannot diminish the importance of the ability to achieve an immediate stop at CQB distances just as you cannot diminish the importance of being able to defeat next generation threat body armor at distance.
Last edited:
M193:
The damage caused by the 5.56 mm bullet [M193] was originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 turn in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[43][58] However, any pointed lead core bullet will "tumble" after penetration into flesh, because the center of gravity is towards the rear of the bullet.
The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were caused by bullet fragmentation created by a combination of the bullet's velocity and construction.[60] These wounds were so devastating that the photographs remained classified into the 1980s.[61]...
... The original ammunition for the M16 was the 55-grain M193 cartridge. When fired from a 20 in (510 mm) barrel at ranges of up to 300 feet (100 m), the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2,900 ft/s (880 m/s))...
that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber.[142][143]
These wounds were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.[146][147][148]
As the 5.56 mm round's velocity decreases, so does the number of fragments that it produces.[24] The 5.56 mm round does not normally fragment at distances beyond 200 meters or at velocities below 2500 ft/s, and its lethality becomes largely dependent on shot placement.[24][143]
Red
- Status