3 ms·

5.56 is also by far the best squad level belt fed weapon round. The precision of fires you can achieve at around 300-400m with a SAW by observing the beaten zon

5.56 is also by far the best squad level belt fed weapon round. The precision of fires you can achieve at around 300-400m with a SAW by observing the beaten zone is pretty awesome, and that's largely a function of the low recoil of the 5.56 round. Furthermore, 1000 rounds of SAW ammo weighs like 30lbs less than 1000 rounds of 240 ammo. When it's 120 degrees out, that's non-trivial. And despite what Old Corps gun nuts might tell you, there is plenty of "power factor" (LOL) in the 5.56 round. It gets the job done....

jki275 8y ago
I know Army SF Snipers who shoot customized 5.56 rifles, obviously using heavier rounds and such. It's a great round -- I love 5.56.
- leroy_masochist 8y ago
  Yeah there's a 75-grain 5.56 round tuned specifically for the HK416 that SOCOM is currently playing around with. Sweet setup. Don't know how widely it's fielded though.
  - stirfrykitty 8y ago
    While the 5.56 does improve with time and is lighter, the 6MM or .30 is still better IMHO. Were I given a choice between carrying an extra few pounds and having better terminal ballistics, I'll take that. Being that the average Infantry loadout is still 6 30-round magazines and a pistol with 3 15-round magazines, I'll take the heavier 6MM or .30 since the weight difference is not that great. The M-249 SAW is a fine weapon and I've used them several times. They are good for what they are designed for, which is laying down suppressive fire for a squad. I still agree with the Russian doctrine of one DM per squad. If every squad had long(er) range capability, this would go a long way to helping squads not have to call in LR support or use the SAW so much. You're obviously an intelligent man, and I agree with you on some points, but you also have to remember that the Marines and Army do things differently. The tactics and weapons doctrines are much different. The Army does this better in some instances. I admire the FFL and how they do squad and platoon tactics. Those guys are extremely well trained, often better than us, and they don't tend to wait around for permission when the SHTF, something that has gotten many a soldier and Marine killed. Say what you want about the French or Russians, but they give their platoons much more leeway in combat ops. Americans, since Vietnam, need to have almost express permission to engage unless directly fired upon. Having said all of this, I'm not a war planner or an expert, just one man's experience and observations. We (Americans) can and should learn from other forces. They often do things better. For example, we send the 82nd to French Guiana for jungle warfare. We send troops (A & M) to Israel to learn CQC. The Philippine Marines are likewise excellent jungle fighters.
    - jki275 8y ago
      The average infantry loadout does not include a handgun. 6mm and 30 are "better" if you don't have to carry it -- you're also forgetting the weapon is much heavier. For the vast majority of infantry encounters, it adds zero capability to the fight. I'm curious as to when you were in the military, and what military you were in.
      - stirfrykitty 8y ago
        USMC, 86-94. As an NCO, I was issued a handgun because my MOS called for it. The Corps has different doctrine than the Army. Issuing a handgun makes plenty of sense in certain environments. I did lots of "jungle time", as it were, so our mission was different. Marines do many different things than the Army. Loads of patrols for drug interdiction, for example. Never saw American soldiers on these. Ditto patrolling in PI for insurgents. Everyone armed to the teeth for these. When you're in Thailand or the PI and you're miles from re-supply and helos cannot see you for the canopy, you are humping tons of crap that you normally wouldn't, although my base loadout always included a handgun, no matter the environment. Also please remember that back when I was in, and even now, the Corps gets the crappy end of the stick where gear is concerned. Most of our stuff was Army hand-me-downs. The Corps uses Blue, not Green dollars. All of our vehicles were prior Navy or Army. Quite a few of our weapons were also. They were all retrofitted with new parts (spring kits, etc.), but we had largely older gear. We were still using the AN/PRC-77 radios back then, which is a Vietnam-era radio kit. Editing to answer forgotten point: The new 6MM AR-pattern rifles weigh no more than their 5.56 counterparts empty, and very little difference loaded. The size and weight of the ammo is likewise negligible. These are being tested by the US at the moment in certain theaters and are well liked. They are being considered as DM rifles, which makes perfect sense. The US is taking a page out of Russia's book to have a DM per squad. This should have been done ages ago. For little weight gain, you add serious capability. The 6MM is no slouch, and has the best ballistic coefficient of any round in the inventory. The facts are out there to read. It's all very interesting.
        jki275 8y ago
        Ok, so you have no relevant modern experience to draw from. 94 was a generation and four wars ago. I'm well aware of the USMC issues and funding. Yes, the 6mm rifles are the same pattern, I should have clarified that I was talking about M14s in that comment, the difference is that NATO 5.56 is logistically supported world-wide by both us and our NATO allies. Realistically there are only two cartridges for infantry use worldwide -- 5.56 and 7.62x39. 7.62x39 has many issues that make it unsuitable for our uses, and 5.56 is the cartridge like it or not. A huge amount of R&D has taken place in the 5.56 world since 94, and the MK262 and others address all of the issues you've raised with it except for penetration of heavy cover, which is not generally relevant. The US has used DMs for decades, using M14s or even other weapons. Replacing a DM weapon with another weapon is not what you have been arguing for, and is not relevant to the discussion of general purpose infantry weapon issue, which will essentially always be 5.56 until there is some impetus for all of NATO to change. Given the current state of that world, that's not likely to ever happen.

jki275 8y ago

I know Army SF Snipers who shoot customized 5.56 rifles, obviously using heavier rounds and such. It's a great round -- I love 5.56.

leroy_masochist 8y ago
Yeah there's a 75-grain 5.56 round tuned specifically for the HK416 that SOCOM is currently playing around with. Sweet setup. Don't know how widely it's fielded though.
- stirfrykitty 8y ago
  While the 5.56 does improve with time and is lighter, the 6MM or .30 is still better IMHO. Were I given a choice between carrying an extra few pounds and having better terminal ballistics, I'll take that. Being that the average Infantry loadout is still 6 30-round magazines and a pistol with 3 15-round magazines, I'll take the heavier 6MM or .30 since the weight difference is not that great. The M-249 SAW is a fine weapon and I've used them several times. They are good for what they are designed for, which is laying down suppressive fire for a squad. I still agree with the Russian doctrine of one DM per squad. If every squad had long(er) range capability, this would go a long way to helping squads not have to call in LR support or use the SAW so much. You're obviously an intelligent man, and I agree with you on some points, but you also have to remember that the Marines and Army do things differently. The tactics and weapons doctrines are much different. The Army does this better in some instances. I admire the FFL and how they do squad and platoon tactics. Those guys are extremely well trained, often better than us, and they don't tend to wait around for permission when the SHTF, something that has gotten many a soldier and Marine killed. Say what you want about the French or Russians, but they give their platoons much more leeway in combat ops. Americans, since Vietnam, need to have almost express permission to engage unless directly fired upon. Having said all of this, I'm not a war planner or an expert, just one man's experience and observations. We (Americans) can and should learn from other forces. They often do things better. For example, we send the 82nd to French Guiana for jungle warfare. We send troops (A & M) to Israel to learn CQC. The Philippine Marines are likewise excellent jungle fighters.
  - jki275 8y ago
    The average infantry loadout does not include a handgun. 6mm and 30 are "better" if you don't have to carry it -- you're also forgetting the weapon is much heavier. For the vast majority of infantry encounters, it adds zero capability to the fight. I'm curious as to when you were in the military, and what military you were in.
    - stirfrykitty 8y ago
      USMC, 86-94. As an NCO, I was issued a handgun because my MOS called for it. The Corps has different doctrine than the Army. Issuing a handgun makes plenty of sense in certain environments. I did lots of "jungle time", as it were, so our mission was different. Marines do many different things than the Army. Loads of patrols for drug interdiction, for example. Never saw American soldiers on these. Ditto patrolling in PI for insurgents. Everyone armed to the teeth for these. When you're in Thailand or the PI and you're miles from re-supply and helos cannot see you for the canopy, you are humping tons of crap that you normally wouldn't, although my base loadout always included a handgun, no matter the environment. Also please remember that back when I was in, and even now, the Corps gets the crappy end of the stick where gear is concerned. Most of our stuff was Army hand-me-downs. The Corps uses Blue, not Green dollars. All of our vehicles were prior Navy or Army. Quite a few of our weapons were also. They were all retrofitted with new parts (spring kits, etc.), but we had largely older gear. We were still using the AN/PRC-77 radios back then, which is a Vietnam-era radio kit. Editing to answer forgotten point: The new 6MM AR-pattern rifles weigh no more than their 5.56 counterparts empty, and very little difference loaded. The size and weight of the ammo is likewise negligible. These are being tested by the US at the moment in certain theaters and are well liked. They are being considered as DM rifles, which makes perfect sense. The US is taking a page out of Russia's book to have a DM per squad. This should have been done ages ago. For little weight gain, you add serious capability. The 6MM is no slouch, and has the best ballistic coefficient of any round in the inventory. The facts are out there to read. It's all very interesting.
      - jki275 8y ago
        Ok, so you have no relevant modern experience to draw from. 94 was a generation and four wars ago. I'm well aware of the USMC issues and funding. Yes, the 6mm rifles are the same pattern, I should have clarified that I was talking about M14s in that comment, the difference is that NATO 5.56 is logistically supported world-wide by both us and our NATO allies. Realistically there are only two cartridges for infantry use worldwide -- 5.56 and 7.62x39. 7.62x39 has many issues that make it unsuitable for our uses, and 5.56 is the cartridge like it or not. A huge amount of R&D has taken place in the 5.56 world since 94, and the MK262 and others address all of the issues you've raised with it except for penetration of heavy cover, which is not generally relevant. The US has used DMs for decades, using M14s or even other weapons. Replacing a DM weapon with another weapon is not what you have been arguing for, and is not relevant to the discussion of general purpose infantry weapon issue, which will essentially always be 5.56 until there is some impetus for all of NATO to change. Given the current state of that world, that's not likely to ever happen.