March 11th, 2010
Before Marines in Afghanistan received enhanced 5.56mm rounds last month, an influential four-star general advocated behind the scenes for an option that packs even more punch: 6.8mm ammunition…
The Corps first considered fielding 6.8mm ammo in 2007, after rank-and-file members of Special Operations Command designed it with their command’s approval to address deficiencies with the standard 5.56mm round, Eby said. Neither SOCom nor the Corps fielded it, in part due to the cost and logistics it would have required to make the change.
For now the Marines are going with the SOST 5.56.
I’ve also heard that at one point the Marines were looking at the SCAR and had some 6.8 versions put together for testing.
UPDATE: Comment:
I keep hearing that it’s simply too difficult for the mightiest armed force on earth to field a new rifle round, even if it’s demonstrably superior. So there’s no point trying.
I’m sorry but that’s indistinguishable from what comes out of the rear end of a male cow-type beast.
March 12th, 2010 at 4:34 am
Have you seen the articles on Defense Tech discussing the lack of engagement capability by the infantry squad past three hundred meters? The gist of it is that the Army (not the Marines) only do rifle training out to 300 meters, so soldiers were not accurately engaging at further distances, which our enemies are taking advantage of. The other thing to take away was that the 5.56 out of a 14.5 inch M4 barrel was not hitting hard enough at the ranges we tend to fight in Afghanistan.
Going to a 6.8 or 6.5 round for the fight in Afghanistan seems like such an obvious choice to me. I know our gear and logistics are not set up for this right now, but I think the notion that one round is going to fight all of our wars is outdated. We modularize everything else on our weapons except the round they fire. While the ACR is overpriced and remains to be proven, I think something like it is the logical next step for an infantry weapon. In a street fight like Iraq, the rifle can be set up with the standard 5.56, or even better 6.8. In Afghanistan, the harder hitting at long ranges 6.5 Grendel makes the most sense. If one type of ammo is unavailable, switch the barrel and bolt face and use the one that is.
The request for proposal for a new carbine is premature and incomplete without taking all these things into account, in my opinion.
March 12th, 2010 at 9:09 am
We sure could have used some more reach out and punch at OP4.
March 12th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Nadnerbus,
In my day (20 years ago- yikes) I remember barely even seeing the 300m target. My “smart book” said the M16A2 was good out to 400m or whatever, but if I was shooting it the bad guys woulda been pretty safe beyond 250m.
I’m not disagreeing with the consensus that 5.56 sux at distance. Just adding that if your Mk1 Eyeball is not 100%, your new ammo and weapon are not going to help you.
Maybe LASIK for every infantryman would be cheaper than trying to field new weapons?
March 13th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Well we’ve been seeing a lot more ACOG’s in the infantry, and those have, what? Three or four times magnification? Should help a little bit. Just as long as they don’t have evil bible codes on them.
Not disputing your experience, which I do not have. But even suppressing fire that the enemy fears is better than relying on artillery and airstrikes, no? Especially if rules of engagement forbid using them.
Part of the reply from PEO Soldier was that more M14 EBRs were being fielded, as well as the M240 variant meant for dismount. I’m not informed enough to know if that is enough of a stop gap, but just from my times target shooting out in the hills down by the Salton Sea, if I had to engage somebody in that kind of environment, where visibility can be measured in miles, I’d want a weapon that at least equaled the effective range of the bad guys. And the article says they are using their LMGs and mortars to outrange our guys from the high ground, and boogieing before the A-10s can get on station.
Meh, I’m just armchair quarterbacking things. But it makes sense to me.
March 13th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Geeklethal – That was Army shooting…
March 14th, 2010 at 12:58 am
I keep hearing that it’s simply too difficult for the mightiest armed force on earth to field a new rifle round, even if it’s demonstrably superior. So there’s no point trying.
I’m sorry but that’s indistinguishable from what comes out of the rear end of a male cow-type beast.
I think what they’re really trying to say is “we could do it, but it would involve some work, and we’re happy just sitting on our asses doing things the same way we always do, because we’re lazy and don’t like to rock the boat”. Sheesh. What ever happened to the gung-ho, can-do attitude from the brass?
I don’t think the “it would cost money” excuse holds much water either. Yes, it would cost money, but it would also increase the effectiveness of the boots on the ground, and with all the money that is spent training, feeding, equipping, etc. the soldiers, this is just a drop in the bucket.
Somebody needs to step forward and take charge of the situation, and ensure that the guys at the pointy end get what they need to fight most effectively, whether that be body armour, reliable weapons, the right type of ammunition, whatever.
March 17th, 2010 at 10:44 am
In order to do it right would cost money and thoughtful pre-planning. They don’t want to do either when it would mean admitting they where wrong for so many years.
March 17th, 2010 at 11:08 am
They would need to deliver twice as much ammo and gun supplies as needed until there is enough to replace everyone’s gun. Basically pre-supply everyone with what they need then switch as quickly as possible.
I would not go with the “just switch the barrel/bolt” because then you don’t know which gun has been modified. You want to make sure they are visibly different so that you don’t grab the wrong one in a fire fight. At the larger bases you could just switch them out all at once. Hand the guys a new gun and have them turn in the old. (CMP the old ones to reduce the cost.) Just make sure their is enough ammo before you switch guns. There will be some outlaying bases that would take longer but if you double up and give them two guns apiece until all the old ammo is gone. I don’t see how they could complain. Just make sure the new guns and ammo cans are a different color (tan camo) instead of black/green. This would not disrupt the current supply chain any more then delivering extra .308 with M-14’s, like they did during the middle part of the Iraqi campaign.
March 17th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Nadnerbus: There has always been a trade off between close in light weight rapid fire and long range take down power/accuracy. In WWII we all know the came up with a three gun solution. Thompson, Carbine, Garand. Now the question is do we think there is one type of ammunition with multiple guns that can do all those things (M4, M16, SAW) or do they match weapon with ammo and use. (50cal Sniper, M14, M4, MP5), or do we somehow come to some compromise ammo solution that is pretty good and design guns to try to enhance one aspect. (7.62X39, 6.8)
No solution is “Best” all have problems, risks and advantages. All that being said, I think we can all agree the 223 is outclassed in a shootout… where it counts.
March 23rd, 2010 at 6:50 am
Or, pick a middling caliber – 6.5mm or so. Build a nice new rifle around it. My vote is for a bullpup with a 20″ barrel. And give it an adjustable gas (with piston) system.
For normal battle conditions, use a normal full-powered round like the Grendel or even the Creedmor (although it’s probably too tapered).
For close combat, use reduced powered rounds (maybe with Sabots if you need more penetration) – controlled with the gas system.