Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO

More
11 years 5 months ago #27028 by Dabu
Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO was created by Dabu
So say you could replace the 5.56×45mm NATO for our troops, would you? What would be a better general use combat round? What would your reasons be?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27029 by mrraley
Replied by mrraley on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO
It would not be cost effective to switch to a new round.

so in short... No.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27032 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO
Next one should be a technological game changer. Maybe not a traditional cartridge at all. Rail gun technology, caseless technology, dual purpose weapon, a lot of possible ways to go. Just to replace a cartridge? What would you gain for a huge expense?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27038 by OleCowboy
Replied by OleCowboy on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO
Having a guy who worked for me on the Army's board I have had a lot of discussions with him over many, many years. I have spent hours on the ballistic tables, this is a good one: ballisticscalculator.winchester.com/

Having been a Pfc with 14 mo combat time I know well the abilities of the 5.56. Where the 5.56 falters is when you got a mess of hopped up, smoked up, coked up folks intent on killing you. If you don't catch them in the 2 pieplates (head and chest) you will need to try it again and maybe again.

5.56 is the 'double tap' round and for a good reason. VC are not big folks,not at all, but get them stoked up and they are coming in waves you need more stopping power. 5.56 is just not 1 shot 1 kill.

I have also carried the M 14 and let me tell you, that is one heavy weapon and so is a 7.62 basic load.

I see the only rd in the current inventory, that has a history and can be made in quantities able to support a war effort as being the Win .270. Anything else fails at 1 or more criteria to adopt for military use.

It has the stopping power for 1 shot 1 kill, it has the accuracy needed and it in between 7.62 and 5.56.

Granted there is NO shortage of other stuff that would work, most it if you had to buy more than one box you would have order it, just not a stockage item nor is it produced in qty by anyone. Any rd needs to be able to be produced IMMEDIATELY if not sooner by every manuf of ammo in the US. Remember the DHS ordered a BILLION+ rds last year of 5.56.

MRRALEY said its not gonna happen and the reason why is cost effectiveness. He is right and some of the reasons he is right is that for us to move to a different rd requires a new weapon for US AND NATO and guess who will pick up the tab????? Mr Taxpayer USA. It ain't gonna happen. NOT counting the fact that to move to a larger rd would be to ADMIT that the 5.56 should have never been picked to begin with. But the study it was based upon was carry WEIGHT of a combat soldier. Avg weight is 159 lbs, CARRY WEIGHT does NOT include body weight!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27039 by jtallen83
Replied by jtallen83 on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO
I think I like this trend towards using both the 5.56 and the 7.62 NATO's. With the introduction of the SASS it seems like between the two a squad will have something for nearly every situation. I think it would be a mistake to try and combine all the roles into one round alone, at least with the present tech.
The .270 has all the right numbers except weight and length. You won't save any weight over the 7.62 and you have the added cartridge length to deal with.
We should stand pat till something revolutionary can replace everything. Then the expense can be justified.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27040 by mlotziii
Replied by mlotziii on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?
My vote is for Combat Bees!

Yes, not a rifle round at all ... but bees that are engineered to kill people. Unleash 200,000 killer combat bees from a cruise missile and just wait them out. Then have a kill switch that would render them all harmless.

Just thinking...

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27041 by 13fcolt
Replied by 13fcolt on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?
.300blk is looking really good. It will never be 7.62x51, but it does bring more to the table within the 5.56 envelope without significant increases in weight or loss in capacity.

I've got to go with sisco though. Weapons technology has been pretty stagnant over the last 100+ years. As it stands, any upgrade is more sideways than forward, just the same old thing done a little different. I'd like to see something truly new like caseless, or railgun, or phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27045 by LebbenB
Replied by LebbenB on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?

...phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range


"Just what you see behind the counter, Mack."

Caseless/Cased Telescopic Ammunition (CTA) is just around the corner. While it'll reduce the Soldier's load significantly, it's still an evolutionary step not a revolutionary one. Rifles and pistols will still look like rifles and pistols, because the operating principle will still be the same - a controlled chemical explosion.

Man portable rail guns and directed energy weapons are still on the horizon. It all comes down to one thing - power. Currently, weapons like this require massive amounts of power to work. The Navy is currently doing some really interesting work with rail guns. A weapon like this is right in their wheelhouse since many of their ships are nuclear powered and therefore have the energy to make a rail gun viable.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago - 11 years 5 months ago #27047 by 10-76
Replied by 10-76 on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO -- Combat Bees?

mlotziii wrote: My vote is for Combat Bees!

Yes, not a rifle round at all ... but bees that are engineered to kill people. Unleash 200,000 killer combat bees from a cruise missile and just wait them out. Then have a kill switch that would render them all harmless.

Just thinking...


1 sting, 1 kill, bee dies...

The correct 5.56 round is devastating enough for the 1 shot/kill scenario: the 62gr. green tip.

For instance, believe it or not, I believe there is a small firefight in our neighborhood right now. G21 goes with me to get the Colt loaded with the XM855APs.

I'd love to see it go to the 6mm, and Star Trek stuff is cool too. DO I cancel my AR10-TNF order? Nope.

I've read the feedback of the Army shooters running the .300 Blkout in competition and got the impression it is a rainbow round, nto real effective/accurate beyond 350m? Correct, or did I misinterpret...?
Last edit: 11 years 5 months ago by 10-76.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 5 months ago #27048 by Dabu
Replied by Dabu on topic Round to replace 5.56×45mm NATO
Combat bees? I think standard NBC suits could protect against bees... Wouldn't that be considered biological warfare? :dry:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.