5.56mm thoughts: Return to square one

AR/M4 Beyond 5.56/.223
21

Yes, there are examples, but I wouldn’t consider the M4 comparable to fielding a wholly new weapon like the SCAR. It is essentially a modification of a [then] currently available service rifle to better meet special op needs.

You may be correct, but I still think that you are characterizing the bull pup by the shortcomings of previous designs. It’s not to say that it is not a product of some compromise. Everything is a compromise. But I fail to see what is unable to be corrected in the bull pup lay out. Maybe you can be more specific for my edification. It is, however, a way to optimize velocity of the 5.56mm, which is valuable even with heavier bullets. The PDW concept hasn’t been dismissed yet and it has naturally gravitated to the bull pup specifically because of its size efficiency. Are you suggesting that an ergonomic, truly ambidexterous, and usable bull pup is physically impossible?

Regardless of what ballistic superiority a new caliber may provide it still has to be credible enough to satisfy the bean counters. What value is there in fielding a new cartridge that complicates logistics and STANAGS when it is still anemic compared to 7.62mm? Might as well just increase the distribution of 7.62mm platforms and have it both ways - logistics, STANAGS, and ballistics?? I still think the 5.56mm will remain a viable tool for certain uses.

Tim

22

Bullpups are limited in their LOP adjustment because the bolt needs somewhere to go when cycling, along with some kind of buffer to prevent the bolt carrier from beating itself or your shoulder to bits, as well as a stock pad/butt plate of some sort along with the action spring(s)- which establishes the minimum LOP. This is generally not all that short for 5.56+ weapons. The buttstocks on them also tend to be wide, which makes achieving a solid, rapid mount difficult when on top of armor, and they tend to slip more since the butt is so wide, thus decreasing traction. There is a limit on how close to the pstol grip you can place the mag well unless you want to constantly smash your wrist with the magazine during bolt-lock reloads. But if you go too far back you wind up fighting around your gear in an attempt to seat the magazine in your armpit. The gun has to be worked oddly when reloading since the mag well is in a difficult and non-intuitive location that does not work with normal body mechanics. The long trigger/transfer bar complicates the fire control and is vulnerable to fouling and corrosion. The location of the magazine release is going to have to be very close to the magazine itself, requiring two hands to perform a reload instead of one at a time, which allows simultaneous action, cutting dead time (similar to the reason why there are no viable pistol options that are bottom “heel” release these days). This has nothing to do with specific designs, but rather the layout as a whole. I am not making FAMAS or AUG specific complaints, but rather the conceptual overview of failure.

What it boils down to is that it may be possible to perfectly balance all the different distances for one person, but it would be off for pretty much anybody else.

The short handguards suck for supported postion shooting, especially with the butt-heavy weight distribution of bullpup designs, as well as most other realistic shooting applications.

Other designs like the P90 work because they are top-feeders with a much shorter round, with a much reduced requirement for bolt carrier mass and action spring.

Further, in the event of a catastrophic failure you have your head, neck, hands, and arms all wrapped around the chamber area.

Now, since I am not clairivoyant and own no crystal balls I can’t say that there will never be a bullpup that is worth a shit, but it is hard for me to imagine one with today’s technology delivered at a competative price. Bullpups are built to be stored in armories or hidden in armored vehicles- not to win gunfights. Most guys in the US that like bullpups (that I know) are using them a plinkers/truck guns- the ability to manipulate the gun under stress is irrelevant to them.

If you just like bullpups because you can squeeze 100-200 fps more out of them in a similar OAL to the M4 I don’t have any argument to that other than all the other reasons- which I think far outweight a few hundred feet per second.

I don’t mean to imply that the 5.56 is incaipable of achieving positive result. I personally have not had it fail other than it’s weakness in penetrating hard cover. 5.56 has dropped lots of bad guys, but there are other things that do it much more efficiently. While we are on the topic- velocity itself is not necessarily going to penetrate cover better. Velocity seems to be the key to penetrating steel, but when it comes to other intervening materials high velocity bullets fragment more rapidly, thus losing energy rapidly, resulting in shallow penetration of intervening material when compared to identical bullets at lower velocities. Avoid worshipping at the altar of velocity. There are many aspects that must be weighed out to achieve favorable balance.

23

And, frankly, that is why I think the bull pup has merit. If by coupling the bull pup’s longer barrel with enhanced projectiles to make the 5.56mm a moderately more effective caliber it’s ballistic utility can be salvaged. However, any 5.56mm platform is ultimately unsuited to be a battle rifle for all occasions. So, reduce the emphasis of the 5.56mm in infantry squads. Increase reliance on 7.62mm platforms. And retain the 5.56mm in a bull pup configuration, perhaps better suited for those MOS’s that don’t need a 7.62mm battle rifle but do need a more effective fighting tool than a sidearm. 100-200 fps with a better projectile is still better than an M4 with M855.

The bull pup may prove to be a Ford Pinto, with intrinsic compromises not well suited for the high speed, low drag community…or even ground pounders, too. I am optimistic that focused R&D can reduce the pitfalls of its awkward layout or reveal more creative ways of avoiding them altogether. Maybe not to a degree that would satisfy you, or even me, but I am not at the point of concluding that the design has culminated, nor the 5.56mm for that matter.

Tim

24

Honestly, I’d rather run a 10.5" Mk18 CQBR firing barrier blind 5.56 mm projectiles that are designed to still upset down to 1900-2100 fps (for example, something like the 45 or 53 gr all copper Barnes TSX bullets which have MV’s in excess of 2600 fps from a 10" barrel), than use a 20" bullpup firing any ammo, including 75/77 gr fragmenting projectiles.

Every bullpup I’ve shot, including the FAMAS, AUG, SA80A2, F2000 has had too many negatives to offset any positives…

25

Every bullpup I’ve shot, including the FAMAS, AUG, SA80A2, F2000 has had too many negatives to offset any positives…

Could you go into detail?

26

But none of these projectiles designed to expand are ever going to see daylight in the Armed Forces. At least the Mk262 is in some limited service and is better than M855. That’s not to say that we can’t make them better yet.

Tim

27

“But none of these projectiles designed to expand are ever going to see daylight in the Armed Forces.”

sigmundsauer–Did you read page 12 of my NDIA briefing?

A savvy reader who sifts through the various obscure government information sources publicly available on the internet and who reads between the lines on web comments by industry folks may be able to connect the dots and figure out a few things…

28

Dr. Roberts, I’m not sure what you are trying to say. I am neither a physician nor a consultant. I have nothing to profit from these discussions except that I have a personal interest in the weapons and tools of my trade.

I have great respect for the work that you have done and the service you provide to the armed professional. I agree with most all of your scientific conclusions, including the NDIA brief, but that is not to say that I share your opinion on all matters. You bring an authority to this subject matter that few others have, but you are not the authority. I thank you in advance for respecting my passion pursuits by not presuming me to be an adolescent internet surfer. Although, I take your presence in internet forums as evidence that you share similar pursuits, and as proof that the local library does not hold a monopoly on valuable, factual, and academic information.

Regarding page 12, I’m not seeing its relevance to my post. You make very sound proposals that will surely advance ammunition performance. I shared my opinion in this thread on my belief that the U.S. military is not likely to support a complete overhaul of our infantry ammunition and entertain general fielding of expanding ammunition and is restricted by other significant considerations beyond purely ballistic objectives. So, my personal recommendations have been restricted to what I believe to be reasonable ways to optimize small arms performance in realistic light of what policymakers will likely support. In this regard, my effort “to connect the dots” has led me to different conclusions.

Respectfully,
Tim Slemp

29

“Expanding ammunition” is not likely to be approved, however, “barrier blind” ammunition is being aggressively pursued; as a by product, many barrier blind projectiles have early upset–just like the 77 gr TOTM shown on page 12 of the NDIA briefing (notice the projectile in gel, shown on the bottom of the page)…

Perhaps you didn’t notice, but the Army has already initiated a “complete overhaul of our infantry ammunition”, including replacement of the current standard 5.56 mm ammunition with a completely new design: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=22379

30

Will the new M855LFS have improve wound ballistics.

31

Yes, I did notice. I don’t think going leadless is advancing 5.56mm effectiveness materially.

I hope the Army truly does embrace new advances. But professing an open mind to the subject by assembling focus groups is not to suggest that they we will see these advances implemented. Just like the infamous sand chamber test of yesteryear, they are often little more than publicity stunts designed to show a concern without any real conviction to change. That’s not to say that I don’t remain optimistic. As I’ve said before, I do believe the 5.56mm still has utility and a place in the kit bag.

Tim

32

So you are advocating another weapon to add to the inventory that is not suitable for ground combat, but is unsuitable simply because you want to add velocity to a round that they have no buisness firing? You say you favor the 5.56 and the bullpup configuration due to their applicability to CQB, but when the design is exposed as unsuitable for such application you claim it to be suitable for non-warriors. So what is it? Force lesser-trained MOSs to defend themselves with more difficult to manipulate and employ weapons of a lesser caliber than the primary warfighters- for what? Giving that non-combat arms guy a different weapon will require design, selection, trials, etc.- why spend that money? Why not turn that money over into a superior caliber, warfighter’s weapon? Why spend the time and money on a superior weapon to not give it to those that need it the most? The lesser-trained individual will no less glean advantage from a weapon that is intuitive and ergonomic with improved terminal performance and cover penetration. Of course training on the system is critical, but the jump from M855 to appropriate 7.62 ammo is enough to say that many shots that would have limited effect on a threat would become more rapid in their incapacitation, even in instances that result in shooting through light cover. A weapon that is easier to reload is easier to reload under stress, and practice will only improve the ease.

The gap between assault rifle and side-arm has been successfully bridged by the PDW category of weapons, such as the MP7 and P90. Built initially for support personnel whose primary function is not to shoot at people with rifles- they have really found their niche in very close range low-intensity engagements. They are specific application weapons, but seem to fit your concept of supplying a bullet-hose to the untrained.

I personally would prefer to have everyone armed with the same family of weapons using standardized ammunition. The non-SF guy has no less a need to drop the threat than the tip of the spear guys. Threats need to be reduced as quickly as possible, through cover or in the open, from contact distance to as far away as possible. There is no reason to create an artificial ceiling on performance or usability.

Of course you are free to think whatever you want, I just think you are wrong.

33

Here is an observation from the outside…I’m not LEO, Military, or other. I’m just an enthusiast.

It appears to me that the military/government is not even going to look at any weapon that shoots anything other than ‘standard’ length cartridges; ie, 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO. The SCAR L and H both use these rounds. If the military were really interested in obtaining the ‘best’, it would look at another cartridge that is a true intermediate that would fit between these and go with one and only one for all rifles, LMG, and SAWs. The 7mm Murray would fill the bill very nicely and possibly other rounds should be considered.

It’s just that the government/people want to resist change. I believe one of the original reasons for going to the 5.56 over the already 7.62 in the first place was to give soldiers more ammo/rounds for a given amount of weight. A secondary reason was that shooting a field rifle (M-14 in 7.62N) on full auto was uncontrollable for the average infantry at that time. Shooting the ‘new’ AR rifle in 5.56 on full auto was totally acceptable.

Now that both rifles have been in service well over 40 years, the government is looking into a newer platform and what do we see…the same ammo!!!:confused:

Why not go ahead and get the most effective, lightest, best barrier blind busting rounds and then design a new rifle around it???:wink: After all, in the end, it is the cartridge that does all the work, not the rifle!!! The men/women have to carry both the rifle and the ammo around, so give them what they need in 99.999% of the time. There will always be the need for long range sniping and heavy (50 cal and 20/30/40 MM) fighting…but for the regular soldier up to the SF personnel, design a round first, then the rifle!!!:wink:

My .02 and now off the soap box!!:D:D:D

Kelly

34

Doc,
We are safely getting apx 200 fps more from the 6.8 now than we were 3 years ago. With a 16" barrel that means the range of terminal performance has been increased by apx 100 yds, or an 8" barrel is now capable of propelling bullets at the velocity the 16" barrel was 3 years ago, giving the same terminal performance.
What do the powers that be think of the terminal performance of the 6.8?
Are they mainly concerned with reliability of the cartridge or rifle, supply or logistics of adopting a new rifle or a new rifle and caliber?

35

BOTTOM LINE: no Army Division Commander or General Officer rank commanding officer says he is failing his mission because he doesn’t have something better than 5.56.

The US Army Infantry Center and School is Big Army’s proponent responsible for all basic training of EVERYBODY in the Army (privates, cadets, and lieutenants, many who have never touched or fired a weapon) and General Purpose Force (all divisions and commands outside of the US Army Special Operations Command) rifle/carbine sustainement training. NOBODY (except perhaps Army Times and gun magazine writers) is FORMALLY saying the M4 and M16 fails to do its job.

Other services and the Special Operations Command have their requirements and if Big Army doesn’t meet their requirements they use their own systems and money (Navy Mark 18 systems, Marine ACOGs, SOCOM SOPMOD and SCAR, etc.).

If Lieutenant General Mulholland, Commanding General of US Army Special Operations Command says M4s, M16s, and 5.56 do not meet his requirements he is free to R&D and purchase whatever he wants – as long as he pays for it with Special Forces money (SCAR and HK 416 for ARSOF the latest example for small arms. SF-queer requirements ARE NOT bought and paid for with Mother Army dollars. By law, Army-standard anything is bought and paid for with Army money).

Better is better. Soldiers LIKE change if they THINK better is better (look at how many and how quickly Soldiers bought their own ACUs and desert boots to get away from the BDU). There are thousands out there that own their own gear and accessories because they believe it helps them accomplish their missions.

We are spending wartime supplemental money like drunken sailors – but someday that’s going to end. Believe it or not there really is a finite money pool.

This is how the Army weighs big systems change:

Does it require a doctrine change?

Does it require an organizational change?

Does it require a training change?

Does it require a materiel change?

Does it require a leadership change?

Does it require a personnel change?

Does it require a facilities change?

A shift away from 5.56 will DEFINITELY affect materiel, replacing all rifles and carbines in stock, all tools, and all parts (while phasing out the old stuff). Training will have to change starting at the basic level.

Not insurmountable, but not something to take on casually when you’re talking about the entire Army.

36

Thanks,

Kelly

37

Good point on NATO. Too many couch-comandoes refer to “we” as if the USA is the ONLY country that will have to adopt the new round and abandon the 5.56mm NATO round.

It is no longer that simple.

Moreover, even our former enemies - the satelite puppet regimes behind the Iron Curtain - are now NATO members and are using 5.56mm NATO.

5.56 is here for some time longer (especially with the economy in the toilet). Best bet is to work with improving the ammo we have.

I disagree with you on bull-pups. They have proven viable and reliable in modern combat by a military who KNOWS - i.e. Tavor. Hamas hates bullpups right now too - if that matters.

38

From the inside info I hear, there are 3 foreign Nato countries testing the 6.8 now.

39

One of the joys of forum discussions is when people deliberately spin one’s comments to mean something they never said. In this regard, you’ve clearly taken my comments to mean something that they weren’t.

Plainly spoken: the 5.56mm can’t do it all, but it does have a place. What it can’t do is more appropriate for 7.62mm (already in inventory) or something else. Simply, infantry squads ought not be configured with a super majority of 5.56mm weapons.

Regardless, what you feel about my opinions of the bull pup, it does makes the 5.56mm more lethal, although incrementally. I will not argue back and forth with you over the comprehensive virtues or pitfalls of the bull pup. I agree, current bull pup platforms leave something to be desired for most of the reasons you’ve cited, but I don’t think that industry has reached the absolute limits of the bull pup design yet. Ergonomics and ease of use are all matters that can be improved. An intuitive manual of arms is relative. Years of acclimating to the AR platform will make transition to a bull pup awkward for anyone. That is not to say that one cannot be trained to adeptly handle a well designed bull pup.

Nonetheless, fielding a new rifle/carbine/platform is far less expensive and logistically challenging than an entire new cartridge. And, yes, STANAGS matter.

But let me be plain, my recommendation is what I feel to be a compromise solution in light of all the considerations. If there were no policy barriers, alliance entanglements, or limitless funds I would wholly advocate a new platform and a new caliber. 6.8 sounds great, but I don’t see it ever completely replacing the role of the 7.62mm. And if it were, we’d be losing a capability while gaining another.

Moreover, many would argue that the MP7 and P90 did not successfully bridge the gap between the sidearm and infantry rifle. Yes, they are small, but ballistics are abysmal by most contemporary standards of performance. My recommendation is that a bull pup configured 5.56mm weapon makes a far better PDW than a 5.7mm or 9mm, and doesn’t complicate ammunition logistics.

In the last century the U.S. military has upgraded infantry rifle and sidearm standard ammunition several times. The only calibers that have been largely (but not totally) removed from logistics inventory are the .30-06 and the .38 Special. Introducing the 5.56mm did not make the 7.62mm obsolete, nor did 9mm make .45 ACP obsolete. I highly doubt introducing any new caliber will make logistical supplies of the 5.56mm dry up anytime in the foreseeable future, but it will add logistical need for another fo’ sho’.

If all that could be considered are today’s bull pup designs, I’d probably pass, too. And I agree that even an optimized bull pup will bring some compromises with it. But we have lived with the compromises inherent of the AR platform for decades, and just accept it. It is a series of trade offs as we will never arrive at the do-it-all weapon. Let’s just be thankful that the Army is entertaining incremental improvements as opposed to waiting for the leap-ahead technology that may be decades to come.

Tim

40

Explain, please? The 5.56 appears to be doing fine, even with the limitations noted in the use of M855 ammunition. What role would the 7.62mm weapon play outside of its use as a machine gun and a sniper system?

Regardless, what you feel about my opinions of the bull pup, it does makes the 5.56mm more lethal, although incrementally. I will not argue back and forth with you over the comprehensive virtues or pitfalls of the bull pup. I agree, current bull pup platforms leave something to be desired for most of the reasons you’ve cited, but I don’t think that industry has reached the absolute limits of the bull pup design yet. Ergonomics and ease of use are all matters that can be improved. An intuitive manual of arms is relative. Years of acclimating to the AR platform will make transition to a bull pup awkward for anyone. That is not to say that one cannot be trained to adeptly handle a well designed bull pup.

I don’t get it. If the proposal is to replace what is had currently with something better, the idea is to cite an example of what would constitute “better”. You seem to be supportive of something that doesn’t yet exist (a bullpup that is superior as an infantry rifle to the AR-15). Which, if I’m reading this right, means that you support the bullpup platform over the more conventional rifle platform, indicating you believe the merits of the former outweigh those of the latter. :confused:

But let me be plain, my recommendation is what I feel to be a compromise solution in light of all the considerations. If there were no policy barriers, alliance entanglements, or limitless funds I would wholly advocate a new platform and a new caliber. 6.8 sounds great, but I don’t see it ever completely replacing the role of the 7.62mm. And if it were, we’d be losing a capability while gaining another.

Am I to understand this argument as being for a separate caliber being tossed in favor of a caliber that matches the infantry rifle’s caliber? Remember that the 7.62 serves two different roles (machine guns and sniper systems).

Moreover, many would argue that the MP7 and P90 did not successfully bridge the gap between the sidearm and infantry rifle. Yes, they are small, but ballistics are abysmal by most contemporary standards of performance. My recommendation is that a bull pup configured 5.56mm weapon makes a far better PDW than a 5.7mm or 9mm, and doesn’t complicate ammunition logistics.

-Cough-MagpulPDR-Cough- :smiley:

-B