Just other assault rifle to be marketed to the gun collectors of the world.

I can not imagine the US Army change rifle calibers now. They have spent decades consolidate into four basic ammunition calibers. 9mm and 5.56mm for individuals, and 7.62mm and .50cal for crew serve and coax.

I can still remember the outcry when they changed to the M16A2 with a 7 to 1 barrel twist over the M16A1 with a 5 to 1 barrel twist.

You do not want to have an odd ball ammunition in a unit. Have logistic resupply problems and that guy has nothing to shot. Guess he can always throw rocks...

nice gun.... i like it looks cool... i like it better then the Xm8

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Forgot to add, that is one sweet assault rifle, and finally it's in an effective caliber and made by a top grade manufacturer.

That's funny, "finally an effective caliber."

The M193 5.56mm round has greater lethality and wounding potential the the military ball 7.62mm round at ranges under 200m. The fragmentation potential of the 5.56mm round is well-documented and highly lethal.

As for the rifle, big deal, it's another M16 variant. I love the AR-15/M-16 family (I own three), but it will take something more radical than a moderate ammo change and re-tool to make a "next generation" rifle for the military.

The XM-8 is the best candidate I've seen yet.

xm-8 needs to be 6.8mm

may i ask, if the 5.56 is apprenty so deadly to you...why did a certain delta force operator in the battle of somalia or whatever it was called, use a M14 specifically because he knew a 5.56 wouldnt do the job?

Originally posted by M6D
may i ask, if the 5.56 is apprenty so deadly to you...why did a certain delta force operator in the battle of somalia or whatever it was called, use a M14 specifically because he knew a 5.56 wouldnt do the job?

u mean Mogadishu. it was the battle over Mog. the M14 was great for its long range and stopping power. even in Iraq troops use the M14 for troops not specialize in sniping but good enough to use it as a weapon against unseen enemies from afar. not to mention minimizing civilian casualties.

Originally posted by MrMordenThat's funny, "finally an effective caliber."

The M193 5.56mm round has greater lethality and wounding potential the the military ball 7.62mm round at ranges under 200m. The fragmentation potential of the 5.56mm round is well-documented and highly lethal.

As for the rifle, big deal, it's another M16 variant. I love the AR-15/M-16 family (I own three), but it will take something more radical than a moderate ammo change and re-tool to make a "next generation" rifle for the military.

The XM-8 is the best candidate I've seen yet.

5.56mm is a design that was based on a .222 varmint round, that's a round that was specifically designed to kill Groundhogs and Rabbits. It is for that reason referred to by one of the firearms world's leading experts (Jeff Cooper) as a "poodle shooter".

To suggest that the 5.56mm is more lethal than 7.62mm at ranges under 200M is simply not supportable, even silly. Every major theater that 5.56mm has been used in has reported multiple failures to stop. There is a video going around of a soldier in Iraq trying (and failing) to kill a dog with his M4 despite multiple hits.

During the DC sniper shootings, a 12 year old boy was shot center chest with a round of Wolf .223Rem (civilian designation for 5.56mm) at a range of 60 yards - supposedly optimum for fragmentation. He looked down at the wound and announced "I think I've been shot", he then sat quietly to wait for the ambulance and went on to make a full recovery.

People hit with 7.62mm tend to fall over and not get up - ever. But, it does have a fair amount of kick, and requires a heavier rifle accompanied by a lighter load of ammunition (because of the bigger, heavier rounds).

We clearly need a round that is smaller and more controllable than 7.62mm and with better terminal ballistics than 5.56mm.

6.8mmSPC looks to have that balance.

There is nothing more disconcerting for a foot soldier to hit the person he was aiming at and then watch that individual slap another magazine into a beat up AKM and continue pumping rounds in his general direction, and that is what is happening.

There's a reason that special forces are using DS Arms FALs with 16 inch barrels in 7.62mm - they know that M4s are for radio operators and REMFs only.

... they found something better then the M4... something that probly will replace it

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T People hit with 7.62mm tend to fall over and not get up - ever. But, it does have a fair amount of kick, and requires a heavier rifle accompanied by a lighter load of ammunition (because of the bigger, heavier rounds).

Anybody hit from the waist up with the old 7.62 mm round will, even at ranges of 200 metres or less, fall down and stay down and they won't be able to charge at you, and empty their AK 47 in your general direction as they do so!

It's down to Tissue Shock and the traumatic effects of a heavy calibre round passing through vital organs, organ displacement and in some cases, even dragging bits of organs out of the exit wounds.

Yes, the 5.56 milly has a higher velocity and a capacity for a higher wounding rate, as one poster suggested BUT, unless you hit some buggar in the head with a 556 round, he or she will have a better than 50% chance of getting up and slotting YOU!

As for the guys who moan about ammo and the amount it weighs, try lugging 180 ready rounds of 7.62 [for personal use], 360 x 7.62 for the section LMG, plus 2 x 84 mm 'Charlie G' rounds, numerous smoke and hand grenades and quite possibly a personal LAW.

Guess I'd rather that than lugg around ammo that may not put my enemy down and more importantly, keep him down.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by fritz]

I was under the impression that in order to change primary weapon calibers, we would have to convince all of NATO to ditch the 5.56 and go with our new round. Unless I'm mistaken, that's part of the NATO agreement: To use the same ammunition, so we can share it on the battlefield.

7.62 is bigger and heavier but it gets the job done, and it's a NATO round. A significant deal of the extra recoil is caused by the shoulder stock not being in line with the barrel in the original design. It creates a pivot point in the handle, leading to muzzle rise when the gun is fired. Pistol grip stocks usually address that issue, helping drastically to deal with the kick. The gun supposedly becomes much, much more controllable when a stock is used that doesn't create that pivot point.

Or at least... that's what I've heard.

Might as well jump in.

The 5.56 is a good round, but in desert and especially mountainous areas, it quickly runs out of "grunt." They won't penetrate diddly squat.

At distances beyond 200 meters, the.223 results are mixed.

I don't care if you have a SAW, grunt is grunt. I'd take an M-14 over fifty M-4 variants.

I'm not there to make noise.

I'm there to knock those targets down and kill them.

Accuracy, foot/pounds of energy, penetrating power, and "grunt" are to be preferred over a girl's gun that makes a lot of noise.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by dooper]

Boys, boys, boys...

Enough of the 5.56mm bashing! Fritzy I've said it before and i'll say it again, the SLR is gone mate.

The 5.56mm SS109 in current use out performs 7.62x51 in NATO penetration tests (against the standard 3.4mm mild steel penetration target). The long range performance is often cited as being one of the main advantages of the 7.62 NATO round, but is fairly moot when you consider that in current theatres 70% of small-arms encounters are at ranges of <100m, with 95% of engagements being under 400m.

The 5.56mm round is approx 2/3 the weight of the 7.62mm round allowing more to be carried. It also has approx 1/3 the recoil energy of 7.62. This allows for a higher rate of accurate fire to be placed on an enemy, thereby achieving the 4th section battle drill (Winning the Firefight - overwhelming the enemy with fire). The low recoil energy of the round allows for more accurate and controlable automatic fire for dismounted close combat (drill 5 - The attack and fight through).

7.62mm is still the king for medium support, particularly for engagements past 400m. But the 5.56mm is accurate and will kill at realistic combat ranges, and allow the soldier to carry enough to fight unsupported for a longer period.

Keep 5.56mm as a rifle and LMG round, and employ 7.62mm at section level in the medium support role.

Oh wait, that's what we're doing now...

[edit on 25-5-2009 by PaddyInf]

Originally posted by Char2c35t
xm-8 needs to be 6.8mm

Agreed! It would be a brilliant idea!
Though last I heard the XM8 grips were melting under duress? Has that been fixed last?
And the US Army isnt simply going to 'adopt' the M468 because it costs money, and there's probably some sinister reasons behind it too. If they truly wanted the best they would buy G36s or Tavors off the Israelis. But they have the inclination to buy cheaper, and more importantly, but American!
I read an article recently about Delta Force operators preferring HK416s (a great rifle) but getting them confiscated with the statement that M4s are superior...

Originally posted by PaddyInf Fritzy I've said it before and i'll say it again, the SLR is gone mate.

Keep 5.56mm as a rifle and LMG round, and employ 7.62mm at section level in the medium support role.

Oh wait, that's what we're doing now...

I see sarcasm is alive and well Paddy...............................................

These arguments will go on as long as these weapons exist, and every angle, every scientific justification, and every logistical angle has been turned and churned.

An increase in rounds carried makes no difference if the rounds that are fired are accurate.

Penetration. Soldiers rarely shoot at targets behind 3/8" steel plate. They shoot at targets behind sandbags, brush, cinder blocks, mud walls, wood walls and doors and things that require penetration.

In mountains, and in open country where we are, the .223 won't hit squat at distance, and if it does, it doesn't have anything left.

IF and that's a big IF, you can shoot, you want a larger round. For the females in the military, give them the .223.

That .223 was designed and adapted for the jungles of Viet Nam.

And I carried a shotgun instead.

The Galil in .308 is accurate, durable, hard-hitting, reliable, and with differing barrel lengths, can purchase many capabilities.

Anyone that fires more than one magazine on full auto is an idiot. The idea is to shoot someone, not make noise.

The reason the rags can't hit much, is because they prefer to make noise.