replacing the M4/M16 assault rifle with a new carbine

[Spike Jones 5 2002]

Well it seams like the U.S. government finally woke up to reality.

(I cut,copy, and paste from a Yahoo news brief)

The 5.56 mm round in wide use is outmatched by enemy combatants in many instances, the Army Times said, citing a recent study. Under consideration is adopting a caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm range.

replacing the M4/M16 assault rifle with a new carbine, according to the Army Times website. The aim is to provide troops with a weapon and ammo that would increase accuracy and firepower and provide the same number of rounds without adding weight.

The $3,000 Rifle That Could Make the US Marines Even More Lethal | The Fiscal Times


In an article in The Atlantic two years ago, Scales recounted a firefight in Vietnam in 1969. “To this day, I am haunted by the sight of three of my dead soldiers lying atop rifles broken open in a frantic attempt to clear jams,” he wrote.

This is the reason I despise the M-16.
it was adapted because it was CHEAP.
Many U.S. military dies because of it.

 

[oldpink]

I'm no M4/M16 expert, but I've long considered the 5.56 round a bit marginal for general purpose when a round with just a bit larger bore and heavier bullet weight would have been a much better compromise.
When I was active duty Navy, I felt incredible confidence in our then issue M-14, though.
Accuracy, power, long range punch, and 100% reliable with thousands of rounds fired.
btw...this exactly the sort of subject that sparks fierce debate.
Okay, time for a distraction to head that off...ahem...Glocks are crap, and anyone who doesn't carry a 1911 is doomed.

 

[Audie Murphy]

Explains why HK is opening up a US factory. Doesn't contract weapons have to be US made?

 

[jasonh31]

USASOC Envisions Taking SOPMOD Into The 2020s With A New Upper Receiver Group For Its M4A1s - Soldier Systems Daily

 

[KJQ6945]

Explains why HK is opening up a US factory. Doesn't contract weapons have to be US made?

BREAKING: Heckler & Koch Building US Factory In Georgia - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog


. Heckler & Koch did want to clarify that the Georgia plant will not be producing and weapons for the US militaryand is only producing civilian focused firearmsin the new facility

 

[hog slayer]

There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.

Give me a Marine Sgt.

Who cares what weapon system.

 

[LarryC]

Although I was not in the service, I could never see any advantage to the 5.56 caliber round other than price and weight, and number of rounds. None of which impressed me as the round has very poor barrier penetration, is very subject to wind drift at any range over 200 yards, is quite poor in wound charistics and rarely lethal.

One of the last issues of a magazine I subscribe too, I think Guns and Ammo, had a study of the 5.56 rounds used by the military. Anyone reading that would have to believe the round is a very poor choice for a military round.

I own many different firearms with several different calibers, my AR-15 in 5.56 would be one of my last choices to carry in a SHTF situation. I would much rather carry my AK in 7.62X39, my LR 308, even my Garands in 30-06 before I would carry the 5.56 round. Although I could carry more rounds of the 5.56, if that was my only concern, I could carry far more rounds in either my 22LR or 22 Mag. I would much rather have fewer rounds of a caliber that can penetrate light barriers, has more distance accuracy, and much more stopping power.

Although I can see the obvious benifits in a lighter, cheaper round in military logestics, I certainly think the difference in costs should be ignored, and the accuracy of shots at distance in normal winds, lack of barrier penetration, and wound charestics should be the primary reasons for choosing a round for use by our defender heros.

I watched a documentary about Iraq sometime ago, where it was revealed that GI's were carrying AK's in the Hummers along with their AR's. It was stated that the terrorists had figured out the failures of the 5.56 round to penetrate barriers and inaccuracy at distances and were using light barriers at a range where the AK round was effective and the 5.56 was not. They were several wounded and killed GI's because they could not hurt the terrorists in that situation. The General in charge said that although it was against the rules for the GI's to carry AK's he certainly wasn't going to enforce the rule as it was saving their lives. To me that should have been enough to make the politicians get off their butts and investigate new weapons.

 

[obijohn]

There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.

Give me a Marine Sgt.

Who cares what weapon system.

This. Although Hog Slayer is a bit marine centric, his point is well made.

 

[maansmit]

Although I was not in the service, I could never see any advantage to the 5.56 caliber round other than price and weight, and number of rounds. None of which impressed me as the round has very poor barrier penetration, is very subject to wind drift at any range over 200 yards, is quite poor in wound charistics and rarely lethal.

One of the last issues of a magazine I subscribe too, I think Guns and Ammo, had a study of the 5.56 rounds used by the military. Anyone reading that would have to believe the round is a very poor choice for a military round.

I own many different firearms with several different calibers, my AR-15 in 5.56 would be one of my last choices to carry in a SHTF situation. I would much rather carry my AK in 7.62X39, my LR 308, even my Garands in 30-06 before I would carry the 5.56 round. Although I could carry more rounds of the 5.56, if that was my only concern, I could carry far more rounds in either my 22LR or 22 Mag. I would much rather have fewer rounds of a caliber that can penetrate light barriers, has more distance accuracy, and much more stopping power.

Although I can see the obvious benifits in a lighter, cheaper round in military logestics, I certainly think the difference in costs should be ignored, and the accuracy of shots at distance in normal winds, lack of barrier penetration, and wound charestics should be the primary reasons for choosing a round for use by our defender heros.

I watched a documentary about Iraq sometime ago, where it was revealed that GI's were carrying AK's in the Hummers along with their AR's. It was stated that the terrorists had figured out the failures of the 5.56 round to penetrate barriers and inaccuracy at distances and were using light barriers at a range where the AK round was effective and the 5.56 was not. They were several wounded and killed GI's because they could not hurt the terrorists in that situation. The General in charge said that although it was against the rules for the GI's to carry AK's he certainly wasn't going to enforce the rule as it was saving their lives. To me that should have been enough to make the politicians get off their butts and investigate new weapons.

It takes lobbyists and cash to get politicians to do anything.

 

[singlesix]

There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.

Give me a Marine Sgt.

Who cares what weapon system.

This ^^^^^^, bring back the M-4 Sherman Tanks, the Bi-Planes, Brown Bess Muskets, and the Gato Class Subs

 

[MarkC]

It takes lobbyists and cash to get politicians to do anything.

That was kind of what I was wondering. With over fifty years of development and improvement on the M4/M16 platform, including better optics and ammunition, is this a solution in search of a problem? And is the problem actually that someone wants to be the manager/creator of the "next big thing"? Improving the reliability and lethality of a weapons system is always a good thing, but this seems to have come out of the blue.

Okay, time for a distraction to head that off...ahem...Glocks are crap, and anyone who doesn't carry a 1911 is doomed.

As for carrying, I don't carry my 1911 every day, but I have a Sig P938. Is that close enough, or am I, too, guaranteed to die without the 1911?

 

[Excalibur]

Isn't the 5.56's alleged deficiency is because of the specific round the military uses which is standard ball? I supposed there has been a push in popularity in the .300 Blackout

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, a big part of the issue is the 5.56 relies on velocity, which relies on barrel length. When the M-16 was widely replaced with the M-4, it changed the equation. I understand the reasons for a shorter barrel and being more suited for urban combat, but the musket works better for longer range engagement and does more work when it gets there. Anyone who doubt the lethality of the 5.56 and well designed bullets when it hits in it's intended velocity range has never seen the autopsy results. It's like a big melon baller went at the decedent's innards. Drop it below the point it tumbles and the stretch cavity is permanent, and it's just a heavy .22.

The other part of the issue is bullet construction. You can have excellent barrier penetration or you can have excellent bullet upset (which is what makes it more damaging than a .22). I'm unaware of a bullet that offers both. Maybe it's out there and I'm just unaware of it, but I do try to stay on top of 5.56 offerings.

Now, if a new cartridge will solve that issue, particularly if we continue to abide by "ball ammo only need apply" for bullet construction is beyond my pay grade.

 

[avboiler11]

"You go to war with the Army you have" and all that, but sending soldiers into an AO conducive to longer-range firefights with 14.5" M4s shooting M855 should be grounds for general officers being stripped of rank.

Pull two pins and throw a 20" 1:7 DMR upper with a magnified optic on the lower and a loadout of Mk262 and the 5.56 game changes quite a bit at extended ranges.

An intermediate cartridge can certainly tween the 7.62 and 5.56 to great effect...but given supply chains and the 800lb gorilla known as NATO I doubt we'll see 11Bs & 0311s with new-platform Grendels or SPCs any year soon.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I am uncertain that the author:

a. has a clue that the M27 and the M4 fire the same cartridge.

b. how the USMC is using the M27.

c. cites examples from 50 years ago as to the M16A1.

 

[two70]

I am uncertain that the author:

a. has a clue that the M27 and the M4 fire the same cartridge.

b. how the USMC is using the M27.

c. cites examples from 50 years ago as to the M16A1.

Yes, and said author also seems to think it is possible to increase bullet diameter and firepower while also keeping the number of rounds that can be carried and the weight the same.

 

[223 Gunner]

I personally think the U.S. Govt. is too invested in the M4/M16 weapon system. It will probably be a long time before we see a new combat rifle for U.S. troops.
I'm sure the Politicians could care less, they aren't going into combat, they are more focused on screwing the tax payer (and their aid).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

A much more significant development: Marines Get M2A1 HMGs - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

 

[hog slayer]

A much more significant development: Marines Get M2A1 HMGs - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

oh yeah!

 

[Sling10mm]

40 rounds a minute, eh? Sounds like H&K need to up the cyclic rate a tad.