Proposed New US Service Rifle Cartridges

[semi_problomatic]

Why do you suppose there were so many complaints with the M885 that the army developed the M885A1?

Even more interesting was what prompted this, a study in 2007 confirming that enemy soldiers were not dropping from COM shots. The army and marines initial response was shoot higher and shoot twice...and retrain; but then they come out with this handy improved round. Could it be that the 5.56 does not perform adequately enough? Could it be that the gov't is too cheap to buy new rifles so they're putting bandaids on problems?

Apparently the military agreed that the M4 was faulty and the round does not perform well. Instead of replacing them they're trying to fix what they have: DI to piston conversions and magic bullets.

 

[rickyrick]

If the army is trying to fix it, maybe you're right.

 

[Striker1]

Interesting conversation. Any of you well informed guys know how the Army envisions the desired capability of individual rifles/carbines?

I always had the impression they favored group firepower as opposed to precise marksmanship?

...and wasn't M855 originally designed for machine guns?

Thanks

 

[semi_problomatic]

Could be... They came out in roughly the same time by the same company. Though popular reasoning for the m885 is its armor piercing, less fragmentation so more humane. Its a more humane bullet...whose sole function is to kill.... Gotta love that.

But the origional SAW was designed for 6mm, not 5.56.

 

[BlueTrain]

Boy, I must be dumb. What do pistons have to do with it?

If you look back at history, right on down to yesterday, no army ever took to the field perfectly equipped and ready and no army that was in the field ever failed to change to suit conditions, if at all possible. Both of those things are real life, though I suppose there's nothing wrong with trying to achieve both perfect readiness and perfection in everything else. No unit in combat would pass any inspection.

But if you also look at armies that performed very well in the past, assuming you can look past the propaganda, you may sometimes be surprised. Sometimes armies go into combat with one another equipped almost identically, though rarely are circumstances identical. Here's a case study to research: The Winter War between Finland and the Soviet Union and the so-called Continuation War that followed a year or so later.

Nobody had an assault rifle. There were tanks and there was artillery but it was more of an infantry war than not. The eventual outcome was probably predictable given the relative size of the combatants but the Finns achieved amazing results. Why?

Equipment-wise, they did not rely on a single weapon. We still have the image of a rifleman making long range hits. For the Finns, that was a sniper's job. For close combat, the Finns employed as many sub-machine guns as they could manage to get into the hands of the front line troops. That made true believers of the Soviets who later did the same thing. The Soviets already had the concept of the designated marksman down. The submachine guns were either 9mm or .30 Tokarev, both handgun rounds. Why do you suppose they went in for submachine guns big time when they used such puny cartridges? Didn't they know what they were doing?

 

[semi_problomatic]

Oh sure, you could also bring up Uzis and trench warfare. A bit more recent than 1939 when assault rifles weren't so common. But since we're talking modern warfare and not trying to go back in time...

Why does the discussion always go back to good enough and well so n so 70 years ago...?

The DI to piston conversion and M885A1 were brought up to show that the cartridge and platform are not good enough, and the gov't knows they're not; but instead of fixing the issue they're putting bandaids on it. So this is a totally valid topic. I still think the 6.8 is a good contender.

 

[Crow Hunter]

Why do you suppose there were so many complaints with the M885 that the army developed the M885A1?

I thought the big reason for development was the improved accuracy.

I was under the impression that the new manufacturing method yielded more consistent accuracy results than the M855 and the increased velocity gave a flatter trajectory and increased the "lethality" envelope for the round.

I know there has always been a problem with the M855. Some lots have the steel penetrator swaged perfectly then the very next run it would be off center and the rounds accuracy suffered.

Plus it is more "green".

I would imagine that even if another round was implemented, they would still give it the "general purpose" treatment and try to mix AP/Anti-personnel roles the same as the did with the M855/A1, which would likely give the same mixed results.

 

[BlueTrain]

We go back in time because I believe it is important in nearly all discussions to remember how it was we got to where we are now. There were no rifles and ammo pouches handed to us by the lady in the lake. She only gave out swords and then only to a chosen few. Anyway, what's different about modern warfare? It's still all about men in one hole trying to kill men in another hole.

There may be good reasons to adopt a new rifle. I don't think there are that many reasons why it couldn't happen but there are probably just as many why it won't. Even in living memory a rifle that had barely had any active service was replaced by something quite radical. That was over 40 years ago and it happened in the middle of a war nothing like the one we've been in for the last ten years.

Sometimes new rifles came along that most soldiers loved. The '03 Springfield was one; the M1 Garand was another, though not everyone immediately took to the M1. It was claimed to be inaccurate but I've never read any complaints about the cartridge. What people might think about the next new thing that comes along is hard to predict, only that some will surely dislike it.

Stick around and let's see.

 

[semi_problomatic]

I don't know about anyone else...but the last two tours I did, I don't remember spending any time in a hole. Most my fighting was done building to building or from a vehicle.

With a new cartridge and weapon, you could shrink logistical needs and increase soldier lethality. Say the 6.8.

While every soldier doesn't need the ability to swap from mid to long range, you could have 2-4 conversions per platoon, the dm could then use the same weapon platform, same caliber ammo, and if they ran out of match they could still use what everyone else is using. When I was a dm, I had 3 weapons. A m14, m4, and mossburg 12. I usually only carried the M4 unless I knew the m14 was needed, if we were setting up to do an overwatch then I'd bring the 14 and mossburg incase things got crowded in the building we were using. Thats one person. Thats not including our security guy with a 249 or spotter with his m4.

If you, instead, had a cartridge that could extend the range to 600 or so meters, while still retaining the weight benefits of the 5.56, it would be gold. Instead of M4, M14, 12 gauge, M249 it could be xmwhatever HB, xmwhatever middy xmwhatever middy. Or even 249...since the proposed cartridges are still able to shoot out of a 5.56 lower, the 249 would need minor modifications to make it compatible. Then you have 1 weapon platform for your dm's to learn, interchangeable cartridges for all, and better performance rounds for everybody. Not only that, but parts would be interchangeable. This could be done with AR's, and just have a couple uppers with mounted scopes and longer heavy barrels, or this could be done with a new rifle, one better suited for vehicle combat (a foldable stock would be awesome for trying potshots out of a HMMWV window).

These expectations are just not possible with the 5.56 round. If they were, I'm sure I'd of been issued a flat top M16 with an acog, instead of all the crap I had to carry and maintain.

Oh yeah, and with the M14's. While we got them fresh in '03, and recieved training with them, we passed those rifles on to our relieving unit, who had no training. Then, when we returned 1 1/2 years later, we got those rifles back, and some of the guys who got them this time had no training on them either. Would we still of had this problem if we had a cartridge and rifle platform like mentioned above?

 

[BlueTrain]

I'm glad with someone with recent experience has good comments to make. Always interesting to get the viewpoint of someone on the ground.

You all may be surprised at the lavish amount of shooting equipment, including optics, that is distributed among the troops overseas. It's hard to imagine something that has been overlooked, although there's always room for improvement. Sooner or later stuff wears out. My one informed me that even his tank platoon sent off men for designated marksman training and they even received .50 caliber rifles. But they considered them useless with regards their mission and passed them on to another unit. I have a photo of my son standing in front of his tank armed with both a shotgun and a pistol in a stylish drop-leg holster. He said they turned in their pistols later on and he also suggested the shotgun was just for the photo.

 

[insomni]

/facepalm.
Look,todays battle is notfought by a band of snipers. It isfought on the squad and platoon level ON THE MOVE. We would like a nasty round, but the round has to be light enough for a fireteam to maintain a good base of suppressing fire, and THEN transition to kicking a door in. No I don'twant a big heavy ass elephant round. I have to carry at least a basic load and a half.

I cant think of a single engagement I fought that was over 300m. They tended to be less than 150m. The bulk of them were under 75.

Granted im biased because my tours have been to Iraq, so I cant attesttoafghanistan, buti'd imagine knowing my bros who have been there that they don't want to lug the same amount of a heavier round (For those saying that they.d reduce the number of rounds you'd have to carry; you forget how the army (light infantry in particular) operate: LIGHT INFANTRY IS ANYTHING BUT)

 

[mehavey]

If a total of 2½ lbs would buy you a full 250-round loadout of ammunition
with 650m lethality --no other outward changes-- would it be worth it?

 

[BlueTrain]

I think it is interesting that when the army was working up the requirements that resulted in the .30 carbine and cartridge, one was that it be effective to 300 yards (that was before meters were invented) and beyond. Do you think they even came close? The .30 carbine can claim to be an intermediate round but not the first by any means. Its antecedents have some claim but the even older .38 WCF and .44 WCF cartridges were officially rifle cartridges--sort of. In comparison, the 7.92k round is about 50% more powerful, the 7.62x39 somewhat more so.

But the .30 carbine wasn't supposed to replace rifles, you say, but rather pistols. Okay, then, let's leave it at that. The smaller small bores, however, from 7mm down from the period before WWI do not fit my definition of an intermediate cartridge, however nice they may otherwise be. And I don't think they have any advantage over a 7.62 NATO in a semi-automatic rifle.

Apparently, however, 300 yards is considered to be the limit of engagement for ordinary infantry with the basic rifle for a variety of reasons.

The mention of light infantry makes me think, heavy infantry being mechanized, I presume. It seems there ought to be within an organization dedicated light infantry; troops who actually operate "lightly", which I take it to be the way the enemy operates. At some point you may have to defeat the enemy at his own game. Doesn't mean everyone has to operate that way. It also makes you wonder why the army doesn't do a lot of road marches with heavy packs instead of a lot of running in a track suit.

 

[rickyrick]

Yes to post 92

 

[semi_problomatic]

You'd lose more weight than that swapping from iba to plate carriers.

And, in reality, the most effective means of warfare is carried out by SDM's on today's battlefield. The guys who post up in a house watching those known IED emplacement points and actually killing hodge putting down IED's. Not the guys randomly trading potshots during a complex ambush or with some guy on a roof.

But my ancidotal story vs yours will go no where, so read this:

Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters. These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.

From here: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331



Its the guys who can hit what they aim at that make the difference. Not the guys blowing 400 rounds down an alley and hitting god knows what.

 

[rickyrick]

It does seem that several people have presented valid arguments, and something in the 6-7mm range would be more appropriate.

 

[jimbob86]

Its the guys who can hit what they aim at that make the difference.

Either that or overwhelming logistics ...... which has been the theory in use for a long while now.... that won't work now.

Now, not only our guys "can't miss fast enough" in the wide open spaces of Afghanistan, every errant bullet often has a chance of hurting the "hearts and minds" part of the mission ...... hitting what what you aim at, and nothing else, is important.

Our military, like nearly all organizations, suffers from Organizational Inertia: "this is the way we've always done it.....": They are equipped and trained to fight the last war, not the current one, even when it is painfully obvious to anyone that our existing "Fire and Manuever" tactics, on foot, are just not applicable to the terrain involved.

That said, I doubt that we are going to be sticking around A-stan long enough for any changes in training or doctrine to matter.....

 

[BlueTrain]

Is the major who wrote the monograph saying that the designated marksman is pointless or ineffective or something? I had the impression that was what he was there for. I don't think overwhelming logistics plays much of a part here either. You are correct, however, in that it is the guys who makes the hits that makes the difference, whether he is shooting a rifle at the enemy or piloting an airplane. The problem is that it is probably the same percentage making the hits, shooting a rifle or flying a plane.

You are probably also right that inertia is inherent in a military organization and difficult to overcome. But obviously changes get made. I'd hazard to say that it is the army in the middle that will be the best with changing to meet new conditions and with being trained. Let me explain.

The army going into a conflict will be the one that usually has the old ideas and the old weapons. That isn't always the case but for the defensive side (and just as often, it seems, the agressor side). The army in the middle of the conflict as adapted. The army at the end, on the other hand, may be tired, bled dry and ready to quit or reluctant to take a lot of casualties at the end of hostilities. But don't bet on "maybe."

 

[mehavey]

If a total of 2½ lbs would buy you a full 250-round loadout of ammunition
with 650m lethality --no other outward changes-- would it be worth it?

Yes to post 92

Then I submit we consider:

- The heaviest possible bullet
- Balanced against the highest possible ballistic coefficient
- Using as efficient a case as possible/dimensionally consistent w/ current M4/16 receivers & magazines
- All for 70 grains difference from the current M855 family

 

[semi_problomatic]

Once contact is made, the fight is limited to machine gunners, mortars and designated marksmen. In the table of organization for a light infantry company8 only the six –M240B 7.62-mm machineguns, two- 60-mm mortars and nine designated marksman armed with either 7.62-mm M14 rifles or accurized 5.56-mm M16A4’s rifles are able to effectively engage the enemy. These weapons systems represent 19 percent of the company’s firepower. This means that 81 percent of the company has little effect on the fight. This is unacceptable.

Another paragraph. And no, he's saying they they're the only ones CAPABLE of engaging the enemy (outside of machine guns and mortars). The rest of the company is ineffective.