5.56mm thoughts: Return to square one

AR/M4 Beyond 5.56/.223
1

In recent years a great deal of thought has gone towards addressing the inherent ballistic shortcomings of the 5.56mm cartridge for military service. We’ve seen the introduction of several excellent new calibers that each close the distance between the 5.56mm and the vaunted 7.62mm. I must confess that this topic has always fascinated me and, as a soldier, I’ve invested some thought on the matter myself.

Recently I had an epiphany of sorts and have come to the conclusion of what I think the Armed Forces should do regarding the 5.56mm.

First, do not abandon it. Yes, it has shortcomings but I believe that it still has value as a military fighting cartridge. It’s indisputable that newer calibers like the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC provide better ballistics and more thump. However, the reality is that they add more weight and complicate STANAGS. I think that the 5.56mm has its place but the military needs to deemphasize its utility on the front lines, particularly in its broad base use in carbines like the M4 as a standard infantry weapon.

I think the best use of the 5.56mm is in the CQB role, a combat role that is not likely to abate anytime soon and where limited penetration is a valued performance attribute less easily achieved with the heavier calibers. Because carbines are more uniquely suited for CQB the velocity loss, so critical to the 5.56mm’s effectiveness, can be incrementally offset with bullet improvements along the lines of the Mk262 mod 1 (77g OTM). Moreover the Mk262 will increase performance in the longer barrels of the M16 as well. I believe it to be the best contemporary balance between ballistic performance that the 5.56mm can supply.

Second, in support of retention of the 5.56mm the military should focus R&D into a new infantry rifle/carbine platform. I like the M4, but despite the more often discussed shortcomings of its gas system, it has a short barrel which is widely recognized as hamstringing the 5.56mm even further beyond its debut role in the 20” M16.

Therefore, I think the Army needs to seriously consider, develop, and adopt a bullpup platform that can fill at least three, if not more, roles. That of the carbine, infantry rifle, and PDW. PDW’s have been considered for decades and a bullpup design makes sense. Moreover, the bullpup configuration permits a significantly longer barrel length that can boost the 5.56mm to much more useful velocities while maintaining CQB-friendly compactness. It would be little challenge to design a bullpup with a 16-18” bbl and still retain some length of pull adjustment in the stock within the size envelope of an M4. I think technology is at the point now where bullpups can be designed to offset their inherent weaknesses (ambidexterity, ejection, et al) that plagued former designs. In the infantry rifle and designated marksman roles the barrel length can be further extended to 20” and beyond to capitalize on the velocity attributes that the 5.56mm is capable of and further offset its ballistic weaknesses. Lastly, the PDW options of late have been unacceptable, largely because of the caliber options. A compact bullpup in 5.56mm would retain the utility of a standardized cartridge, and even with short barrel lengths would still be far better than anything thus far presented.

So, none of these options turn the 5.56mm into a decisive infantry cartridge, but I do think that they optimize the ballistic properties of the cartridge, however incrementally, and retain the positive performance attributes of the 5.56mm, NATO standardization notwithstanding. So, what to do?

Third, I think the military should expand the role of the 7.62mm. Again, there’s not much argument that the 7.62mm has what takes in terms of decisive ballistic performance. More importantly it provides increased utility against light skinned vehicles and cover, which the 5.56mm simply will never provide, and other calibers only cut the distance incrementally. 7.62mm is entrenched in NATO, and for good reason. It is the basis for almost every NATO GPMG and has performed magnificently. Therefore it will continue to be a part of every infantry squad and be a passenger on every resupply chopper. I think it makes sense to simply increase its role in the infantry squad with a broader proportion of infantrymen that are armed with a 7.62mm battle rifle. Perhaps a 50/50 mix, or 40/60, 30,70? Whatever, certainly better than just a couple of 7.62mm guns while the rest of the squad relies on 5.56mm. Yes, it will increase weight, but it will provide an better distribution of ballistic performance against both personnel and light cover when paired with the 5.56mm. I like the M14, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be the choice. There are many excellent 7.62mm options. Reconfiguring the TOE for our infantry squads and other small units with a better 5.56mm/7.62mm mix counterbalances the 5.56mm’s shortcomings and our reliance upon it and maintains standardization of ammunition.

It is clear that whatever cartridge the military entertains as a replacement for the 5.56mm will neither replace the role of the 7.62mm or match the limited penetration attributes of the lighter 5.56mm. Moreover, none of the options tabled will supplant the need for a PDW type weapon that would potentially require an additional caliber to enter military service, complicating logistics.

Finally, perhaps one of the most detested but greatest attributes of the 5.56mm/7.62mm team is that they are NATO STANAG calibers, where logistical policies have trumped ballistic objectives. However the two calibers can compliment each other across a wider spectrum of threats and adversaries, spanning the confined spaces of CQB to the broader ranges of conventional battlefields, better than any other option that I can think of. Introducing another caliber only slides the usefulness of infantry rifles and carbines one way or another and may potentially force the dependance on an even smaller caliber than can perform CQB, SRT, and counterterrorist roles much like the MP5 used to a lesser effect. This role will likely never go away either. Lastly, fielding Mk262 (or other improved 5.56mm) and small arms is a far simpler and less costly task than reequipping a nation with new calibers, or NATO for that matter.

Of course, none of this is what I would call a groundbreaking revelation of sorts, nor is any particular aspect of it new to the members of this forum. However, I think this role for the 5.56mm makes sense and gives me a little peace of mind over the issue in acknowledgement that the military’s choice affects me personally.

Thoughts?

Tim

2

United States Army doctrine since 1979 states the American Soldier should OWN anything from his muzzle to 200 Meters. He or she can do this easily with the M4/M16, iron-sighted or glassed.

The entire force consists of everything from trainees who have never fired a weapon before learning from the basics to the 10-Division general purpose force to the Special Forces Soldier who will fire tens of thousands of rounds of ammo in a career. The weapon is fairly robust and very versatile with a range of service-provided modifications (sights, lights, aimers, bipods, etc.).

Heavy bullet ammunition (69-80 grains) will accurately extend the range of the weapon to 600 yards but so far is not a requirement for the GP Army. If the Army G3 were to buy it for the main Army they are bound (by law) to buy US Army Special Operations Command’s requirements for Mark 262 – something G3 doesn’t want to do.

What is the requirement to change to a bullpup?

7.62mm is the mainstay for the M240G machinegun and will probably remain so for the interim.

As long as the United States provides (or potentially provides) ammo for our allies we won’t stray far from a generic standard (currently 9mm, 5.56, and 7.62 for small arms).

3

True. And I’m not one necessarily arguing against the M4, except in acknowledgment that its shorter barrel further reduces the ballistics of the 5.56mm. The M4 is a great carbine with great usefulness, but it will be replaced in time. There is not a “requirement” per se for the bull pup. But a bull pup uniquely improves the ballistic performance of the 5.56mm by using longer barrels in a platform that is equally, if not more so, compact than an M4. Accessorization is just a matter of modularity and an M1913 rail allows any platform to use the broad range of lights, lasers, pointers, and what not already available COTS or in Army inventory.

Tim

4

If you are going to go through the trouble of all the testing and development of a new bull pup style rifle why not improve the round it is firing? Maybe develop something that doesn’t derive the majority of its effectiveness from velocity and therefore barrel length? I’ve asked the question - if the military could transition (albeit very poorly) from the M14 to the M16 in the middle of the Vietnam War, why can’t they transition to a new rifle now? Is our industry now so weak that this is impossible?

Your devil’s advocate…
Spooky

5

Any new rifle caliber would need the consent of the Army’s Logistics Command. Recently they have stated that no new rifle caliber would be considered due to the burden it would create logistically and the difficulty they have keeping up with current ammunition demands required by the War on Terror. Someone on this site mentioned a replacement for the M855 that would have a slight increase in velocity and would be a green/non leaded bullet. The Army seems to have no interest in developing a standard issue equivalent to the Mk 262. For general use in a M4 type weapon your better off with XM193 since it has a higher velocity and drops to 2700fps @ a greater range than M855. 2700fps is the velocity @ which the wound ballistics decrease due to lack of consistent fragmentation. The only bullpup rifles that don’t suffer from its design shortcomings are the FN FS2000 or the HK G11. Since the 7.62 NATO round is used mainly in the M240 GPMG, the Army should replace the M80 ball round with a heavy (165-175 grain) Armor Piercing load. Remember the Army doesn’t like to be told what to do and the Logistics Command has more say in what is fielded then the Ordnance professionals.

6

I think its all a matter of trade offs. There is no caliber that the military could choose that would meet all operational needs. The fact is we will continue to rely on multiple calibers. The 5.56mm may not be suited for general infantry combat role, at least not as used in a mass-issued carbine like the M4. The M4 is a great weapon but it was and is intended for a specific CQB and confined space role. Certainly the 5.56mm can be optimized with better ammunition choices like what heavier bullets provide, e.g. Mk 262. A bull pup supplies additional ballistic performance too while retaining the small size necessary for CQB and potentially small enough to be a PDW as well. The M4 will be replaced someday. It’s not a question of “if” but “when.” The question is what will an entirely new caliber provide the services?

My point is that a new caliber, such as the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC, will not eliminate the 7.62mm logistically. Our medium GPMG’s will continue to rely on the NATO round for the foreseeable future. The 7.62mm will stay in inventory. Moreover, the 6.5 or 6.8 will likely have reduced utility in CQB roles that require limited penetration. They will certainly perform better as general issue infantry rounds but the military will still have to have a true CQB limited penetration option in the inventory. If not, it is inevitable that some military entity will submit a request for proposal asking for such a capapility.

The 5.56mm retains these qualities and has the potential to be optimized both by ammunition advances and change in platform. Whatever the 5.56mm can’t do as a decisive caliber should be counterbalanced by increasing the proportion of 7.62mm rifles in the infantry squad. Logistics solved. Combat firepower resolved. No need for new calibers. Yes, it’s a compromise, but it’s also a clean solution that can pacify the warriors as well as the bean counters. Any adoption of a new caliber will create its own set of issues and headaches.

Tim

7

Perhaps my post was too long…but I thought this would generate a little more lively discussion? :confused:

Tim

8

In my opinion, based on what I’ve learned from reports about weapons performance in Iraq, Afganistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, etc, the only individual weapon that truley needs a bigger round is the LMG.

The problem is this:

  1. Do you create a proprietary round (ex: 6.xx) for both the assault rifle and LMG?

or

  1. Do you swap out the 5.56mm LMG for a 7.62x51mm LMG because it already exists?

Regarding the 5.56mm from a rifle, someone once said from the average 18yo grunt all the way to the professional special forces soldier, there lies less and less complaints about the 5.56mm in their infantry rifle due to experience. I wouldn’t doubt that this may be fact.

9

If we stick with our current AR15 based weapons (HK416, Mk18, M4, Mk12, M16), then going with an improved 5.56 mm projectile makes sense, although I would NOT choose Mk262 for this role.

If we adopt a new weapon, then it is logical to introduce a new intermediate cartridge in the 6-7 mm range at the same time.

The other option is to go back to a 7.62 mm based cartridge in a modern rifle design (FN Mk17 SCAR-H, HK417, LWRC SABR, etc…).

My public thoughts on the topic are summarized in my open source NDIA presentation: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf

A bullpup might be nice, but what viable bullpup’s have been introduced to date? It is interesting that with most of our allies who issue bullpups as standard infantry weapons, their SOF personnel often choose an AR15 based system instead…

10

That’s exactly what I was going to say. Bullpups make great sense until you actually have to use one. Britain and Austrailia issue bullpup designs to their line troops, but their SAS units use AR based platforms. Given the choice, their gunfighters choose something other than a bullpup.

11

I am a firm believer in the 6.8 concept for general distribution in the AR platform, and the 7mm Murray if an entirely new platform is to be designed around the cartridge. However- it simply isn’t going to happen. It is not a matter of weak industry so much as cost make the manufacturing conversion that will freeze it. The cost to retool Lake City for anything other than current NATO rounds will be staggering (measuring in several Billions of dollars). Our NATO allies are less than enthusiastic about an entirely new caliber to replace the current ammunition standard, to which their weapons have been built. And unlike us, most NATO militaries have recently adopted new weapons (compared to our 40+ year use of AR based weapons), of which they aren’t all that interested in scrapping. Well, unless the US taxpayer is willing to foot the bill.

The most realistic methods to upgrade ballistic performance of the GI weapon is either improved 5.56 or reverting to a 7.62 NATO fed better ammo. The link DocGKR provided above explains the 5.56 and 7.62 options in sufficient detail.

Should we seek to improve our current general issue weapon? I would say yes.
Should we care if the French and Swiss don’t want to change? I really don’t.
Does my opinion mean much to those that decide funding compared to the leaders of those NATO nations? Not in the slightest. The fact is that most NATO nations have no issue with 5.56 NATO simply because most of our “allies” aren’t shooting many people.

Bullpups suck. Even the best bullpups are hobbled by their layout. The only advantage of a bullpup is a longer barrel in relation to OAL. They all balance weird, lack length of pull adjustment, and suffer ergonomically. I say this with extensive experience on bullpup weapons as well as convetionally laid-out weapons. As has been pointed out by several others, any SF force worth it’s salt are using AR derivatives for their 5.56 weapons (and several are supplementing those with obsolescent 7.62 platforms)- I consider this to be a clue. The issue with all bullpups becomes most apparent in the middle-ground where transitioning to a pistol is not a realistic option but the threat is still close enough to warrant a speedy reload (about 20 to 100 meters). Considering that most conventional forces do not have a secondary weapon to transition to, this distance becomes 1 to 100 meters (about 80% of current engagements).

As far as urban combat is concerned- cover penetration is a good thing. Bad guys aren’t stupid. The dangerous ones understand the concept of cover. Being able to punch through that cover is more important than worrying about overpenetration through an interior wall (though maybe not so much for HD or police work). If overpenetration is a concern R2LP ammuniton can be made available in pretty much any reasonable caliber.

I agree with Dr Robert’s opinon that the first step in improving lethality is to have a robust and reliable weapon. Next, the operator needs to be trained to a realistic standard of proficiency, with that proficency maintained and progressed through frequent training. Only once those two criteria are met do you need to worry about caliber and construction issues. What is going to make the most difference to the 20 year old grunt in a firefight- the billions of dollars spent on changing calibers or the same amount of money invested in individual training?

I also disagree with the thought that the LMG is the only weapon that needs to step up caliber. Once again, what we need is better-trained and more experienced LMG gunners.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

12

I also disagree with the thought that the LMG is the only weapon that needs to step up caliber. Once again, what we need is better-trained and more experienced LMG gunners.

When it comes to the LMG, it’s not about having the gunner better trained. No matter how well a gunner preforms under stress, nothing he can do will cure the fact that 5.56mm M855 has a hard time with structural material.

The LMG is practically an area weapon. It spends most of its time keeping the enemy still and trying to defeat cover to reach the enemy. The round the LMG uses is the only factor in failure or success in its duties in urban or heavy woodland fighting.

Basically, if the LMG’s round can’t reach the enemy while he’s being suppressed in the majority of the cover the environment provides, then the round needs upgrading or a replacement.

13

F2S,

One thing concerns me about that whole NATO “commonality” thing. The British use a 5.56 SS109 round manufactured at Radway Green in their SA80 rifles. This ammo does not not cycle reliably in the M16 FOW. So I wonder has anyone at Ammo Guru Central undertaken testing of ammunition that is manufactured in other NATO countries to see if it will perform in our weapons.

Considering almost every Joe carries an M16/M4 of some type one would think that it would be important since they keep chanting the “commonality” mantra.

14

I thought the Brits used the downloaded Radway Green ammo because the SA80 is a piece of crap. Supposedly H&K fixed all the problems with this rifle. This being the exception, I thought any NATO caliber with a NATO headstamp (cross inside a circle) was loaded to NATO pressures?

15

Doc Roberts’ study is excellent and makes some very valid conclusions.

I see it this way. I cannot conceive of an unconstrained solution to the caliber problem. In essence, we cannot dismiss the powerful forces at play that drive logistical considerations and political treaties (STANAGS) and pursue the ideal caliber in a vacuum. I just don’t see it happening. Moreover, Doc Rob’s recommendation to focus on training before we make expensive caliber or platform adjustments is eminently wise. But of the two more expensive options, selecting a new infantry rifle/carbine is significantly less expensive than fielding new calibers and wrestling with the political implications of sabotaging our current treaties and logistical challenges. The NATO agreements were a result of significant consideration to major lessons learned during WWII. There is a very good reason that we should maintain caliber commonality with our allies. And, at this point, I don’t think the 5.56mm is beyond salvaging. I do think that incremental improvements can be made to the caliber, and the performance boost that longer barrels provided by a bull-pup design can be a profitable option. I don’t think that just because special operators have side stepped previous or current bull-pup designs is any reason to completely dismiss the concept as invalid and not workable. The special ops community is well known for their fluid choice of weapon systems but, by in large, they’ve drawn their weapons from commercial-off-the-shelf sources. The M4’s ubiquity and user-friendliness have probably been very influential to its dominance among spec ops units. Very few instances of large scale new weapons designed purely for spec ops requests. Sure, they’ve had special weapons designed for very specific uses, but the SCAR is one of the few examples of a standard weapon exclusively designed for general issue in the spec-ops community.

I cannot claim extensive experience with the current bull-pup options but do presume that we’re not quite there yet. I see no evidence that the design is simply hit the glass ceiling, unable to be morphed into a truly usable design. In the interest of optimizing the 5.56mm cartridge on the assumption that any major caliber shifts are truly unlikely, the bull pup offers some degree of hope.

One thing is nearly certain, the M4 and M16 family of weapons will eventually need to be replaced. Guns wear out. The cost to replace them is not being defrayed significantly by sticking with the same platform. In the same manner that the JSSAP pistol prospect drove private industry development of some of the most advanced .45 ACP pistols available to date, it is entirely possible that a requirement for a better bull pup can achieve similar results. A bull pup that is truly ambidextrous, has some length of pull adjustment, and is user friendly are all achievable objectives. This in the interest of optimizing the 5.56mm may be reason enough to consider it. But no degree of optimizing the 5.56mm will eliminate the utility of 7.62mm GPMG/LMG or a better designated marksman rifle.

Expand the use of 7.62mm, optimize the 5.56mm and both the politicians and operators will be better off than they were. Otherwise neither will be happy, and certainly not without creating other 2nd and 3rd order effects.

Tim

16

Great article. I like that you mention past attempts at intermediate calibers. Just imagine if McArthur didn’t require the M1 to be rechambered in 30-06. M1’s would have had 10 rnd clips instead of 8. Refining the .276 in a similar way to 30-06 to .308/7.62 NATO would have resulted in a caliber almost identical to the 6.8 SPC. As for bullpups, I like the basic mechanics of the FN FS2000. I think the unconventional pistol grip angle could be changed. If we were to go back to 7.62, I think it would be worth looking at a light ball load (130 gr) to go with the M80 ball. This would allow the rifle to be more effective at close range in rapid fire/auto. I noticed the SCAR H has an full auto position. I wonder what its handling characteristics are in FA. The Spanish tried this arrangement with the Cetme rifle. I’m not sure how well it worked out.

17

If 5.56 mm barrier blind projectiles are optimized to work at lower velocities, then the need for long barrels is greatly reduced and bullpups do not looks so attractive. When we shot the FN F2000, most were less than impressed…

When assessing terminal performance, even the most greatly improved 5.56 mm pales in comparison with equivalently constructed 6.8 mm. To take advantage of this, another option, as proven by the CTTSO/TSWG MURG testing, is to keep all our existing M4 and M16 lowers and only procure new 6.8 mm piston uppers. There is great benefit to this option as an interim solution while awaiting a “leap ahead” technology to mature, as it provides a substantial increase in terminal performance with a minimal expenditure and burden to the logistical system. Most M4/M16 spare parts can continue to be utilized, armorers training is minimal, current web gear remains useful, and all existing training and “muscle memory” remains intact. The U.S. managed to go from .30-06 to 7.62mm to 5.56mm in about a 10 year period, while simultaneously providing .30 carbine and .45 ACP, all without the benefit of computers, GFID tracking, bar-coding, and other modern logistical aids–adding 6.8 mm is not tht difficult a proposition.

M80 ball needs to go away for rifle use… If short barrel weapons like the FN Mk17 SCAR-H are procured, then a lighter weight 130 gr barrier blind projectile is a quite reasonable and effective choice.

18

Doc,

Good points and you address some things that we tend to overlook. Personally, I think the logistics chain could handle adding 6.8, but that would actually require, planning, thought, funding and a desire to do it. Unfortunately, we don’t see much of that in the upper echelons. Why not re-open (or expand) another facility and start producing the 6.8? As you aptly pointed out many parts can still be used/ interchanged.

19

Whatever the reasoning (I have been told otherwise) the ammo did not work. This was discovered just a couple of years ago. This has been slightly abridged.

REQUEST FOLLOWING INFORMATION BE GIVEN THE WIDEST DISSEMINATION. TO MEET A CRITICAL SHORTAGE OF 5.56MM AMMUNITION, THE ARMY HAS PURCHASED UNITED KINGDOM 5.56MM AMMUNITION, THAT WERE ALL PRODUCED BETWEEN 1997-2001 AND ARE THE UK’S NATO STANDARDIZED 5.56MM AMMUNTION. THERE ARE THREE UK CONFIGURATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED AS INTERCHANGEABLE WITH THREE US CONFIGURATIONS.

THE RECIPIENTS WILL PRIORITIZE THESE MUNITIONS TO BE ISSUED/USED FIRST. EACH OF THE THREE UK 5.56MM CONFIGURATIONS WAS COMPARED AGAINST THE CORRESPONDING US 5.56MM CONFIGURATION FOR PERFORMANCE, SAFETY, AND RELIABILITY BY THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AT ARDEC TO ASSURE INTERCHANGEABILITY. BASED ON THIS REVIEW IT WAS DETERMINED THAT ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, STATED BY THE UK AND NATO SPECS, WERE MET AND THAT THE ONLY CRITICAL ISSUE IDENTIFIED WAS A UK FINDING THAT STATED A PROBLEM WITH FAILURE TO CYCLE MALFUNCTIONS EXPERIENCED WITH CARBINE, 5.56MM, M4 (1005-01-231-0973) RIFLES DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN RIFLE DESIGN BETWEEN THE M16A2 5.56MM RIFLE AND M4 5.56MM CARBINE. UK AMMUNITION SHALL NOT BE USED IN THE M4.
THIS AMMUNITION WAS RELEASED FOR FULL USE IN THE M16A2 RIFLE AND M249 SQUAD AUTOMATIC WEAPON (SAW) AND IS ACCEPTABLE FOR USE IN WEAPON ZEROING AND QUALIFICATION FOR THE M16A2 AND THE M249.

IT WILL BE MARKED WITH THE UK STANDARD MARKINGS AND NOMENCLATURE, INCLUDING THE NATO STANDARDIZATION SYMBOL “CLOVER LEAF”. THE US ASSETS WILL BE TRACKED BY THE UK NSNS AND THE NSNS WILL BE TRACKED BY THE ASSIGNED PSEUDO U.S. DODACS.

FIRING UK AMMUNITION WILL INCREASE THE FREQUENCY OF WEAPON CLEANING REQUIRED. ANY MALFUNCTION/PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH THIS AMMUNITION SHOULD BE REPORTED THROUGH NORMAL AMMUNITION REPORTING CHANNELS.

20

The days of the MG as an active killer of large groups of people died in the trenches of WW1. Sure, there are occasions of clusters of people in the open being engaged with machineguns, but largely the role of the MG is suppression, ground denial, and to rapidly achieve fire superiority in an engagement.

This of course does not rule out engagement of individual threats. An individual threat at 200 to 600 meters has the same probability of a single strike when an average “trained” individual is firing 3 round bursts from a bipod supported position as an M4 from a prone position firing a single shot. This is due to lack of training/experience on the part of the shooter. By experience I do not mean length of time in close proximity to the weapon, carrying it on ops, running blanks through it in training, or running diss and ass drills, but rather extensive time behind the weapon perfecting the ability to put bullets into flesh under stress. An experienced and well trained individual will be able to consistently put all three bullets through a standard “Echo Silhouette” out to 300. So it has been proven that proper training improves performance by 300%.

Unfortunately, this does not have a lot to do with the caliber debate. If cover destruction is the jist of your disagreement I have to disagree. Unless the LMG is tripod mounted or hard-mounted to a vehicle they have too large of a cone of fire to be able to efficiently concentrate the fire to defeat the cover at distances past about 100 meters. Add to this the increased recoil of a larger caliber and you can guess that the cone of fire is going to open up even more unless the weight of the platform is also increased. As it is, we break a lot of bipod legs to achieve acceptable cone of fire with the horrific recoil of 5.56. So we need to make the system even heavier to reduce recoil issues. We already have the M240 series, which is pleanty heavy, can reach waaaaaay out there, and can punch through cover. The M249 as it is really is best employed as a crew-served weapon, though most are poorly employed as individual weapons. Making it more difficult to employ, heavier, and with heavier ammo to achieve less that what we already have seems wrong to me.

I hear you.
The standard is anything but, as you know. US MK19 ammo doesn’t do well in HK grenade machine guns, Argentinian .50 Cal hates M2s, and M855 lacks enough pressure at the gas-port of the SA-80A2 due to the upgraded action springs.
Like I said before, I think it is a sorry excuse by upper eschelon to dismiss the improvements in small arms due to cost (less than 1 F22 IIRC), NATO commonality (which isn’t), Law of War (which is out-dated and stupid), and for political ass-licking (which is about the only constant). However, it doesn’t change the fact that we were screwed, are currently being screwed, and will continue to be screwed for the forseeable future, at the end of which we will probably get screwed even harder.

If tomorrow it was announced that we were transitioning to 416 uppers in 6.8 while a new weapon in 7mm Murray was being tested and two former ammo manufacturing centers were being reopened to support their fielding I would literally be dancing an leaping to and fro with elation. But I am not expecting it to happen.

Sure, they’ve had special weapons designed for very specific uses, but the SCAR is one of the few examples of a standard weapon exclusively designed for general issue in the spec-ops community.

Um, M4 SOPMOD? The SOPMOD program is what drove the bus on M4 and M16 reliability upgrade and modularization, and was/is a SOCOM oriented platform.

I noticed the SCAR H has an full auto position. I wonder what its handling characteristics are in FA. The Spanish tried this arrangement with the Cetme rifle. I’m not sure how well it worked out.

The SCAR-H is a much more evolved platform than the Cetme/G3. The low cyclic rate makes it controllable at CQB distances for those with proficiency with FA shoulder-fired weapons. I prefer the SCAR-H over the L, personally.

This in the interest of optimizing the 5.56mm may be reason enough to consider it.

The 5.56 has already been optimized about as much as you can expect. There are some interesting things poking around in the mil to improve lethality of the 5.56, and the 75gr TAP is an excellent choice for the non-mil. They have a much lower frag velocity requirement, and are work from short barrels to realistic distances better than all SS109 derivative ammo from full-size (20") barrels.

I don’t think that just because special operators have side stepped previous or current bull-pup designs is any reason to completely dismiss the concept as invalid and not workable.

Making a gunfighter’s bullpup is like asking for a porn-star’s bible, there are just too many contradictions to be workable- the pieces just don’t fit where you want them to. Not only is it those trained on conventionally laid out rifles transitioning to bullpups that hate them, even those that only know bullpups pretty much fall in love with M4s when they shoot them. The short-comings of bullpups are hidden on the square range for traditional rifle shooting. The problems arise when you actually start fighting with them, or know what you want to be able to do with your gun in a fight. I’m not an aeronautical engineer but I know that you can’t get a helicopter to Mach 2. I am an experienced gun-fag and I can confidently say that gunfighters do not need or want bullpups.