Future General Purpose Caliber for US Military

[Just Jim]

If the military changes it will be to the 762x39 as the commies finish taking over

 

[3MTA3]

Great article, and glad I bought all those 64 gr Nosler Bonded Performance when they were on closeout at Midway. Next planned semi's are 7.62 NATO and they will get similar treatment.

Yes, but correctly engineered with modern materials (like a M-14) add an upgraded Sage-like stock for the DM role.
Here's a new article by a GI medic:

Combat Medic's Advice: "Shoot the heaviest rifle round…shoot at what (you) can hit, and then shoot it again"
By Dan Zimmerman on October 9, 2014
View attachment 107165
Reader JWT writes:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...oot-heaviest-rifle-round-shoot-can-hit-shoot/

Much truth there and why I wouldn't have selected a 556 platform for defense if I'd have intended to use FMJ bullets. Like Sam Kinard says above, FMJ basically turn that round (and others) into an ice pick. I'm keeping 500 rounds of M855 for it's penetration, but shooting all my other M193 and M855 to free up the Lake City brass for Nosler Bonded Performance loads.

 

[Stomper]

You ever been tagged by an ice pick, or scratch awl? I'd hate to take one in the 3,000fps range anywhere on my body.

 

[3MTA3]

You ever been tagged by an ice pick, or scratch awl? I'd hate to take one in the 3,000fps range anywhere on my body.

Matter of fact, yes, and it wasn't fun. Not sayin' FMJ will bounce off you, just that there are more effective loads.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Seriously.. 7.62x39.

It's .30 cal, hits with authority and is common around the world. Weight wise, its not too much more than a 5.56, penetrative capabilities, accomplished intermediate engagement requirements and simply works.

The U.S. could easily develope the perfect 7.62x39 load instead of wasting time on that 300blk, 6.8 or 6.5 nonsense.

Now that non AKs are readily available, with ammo pretty cheep, the caliber is my new go-to. SIG 556R and my custom HK52 with folding SIG brace

 

[IronMonster]

Seriously.. 7.62x39.

It's .30 cal, hits with authority and is common around the world. Weight wise, its not too much more than a 5.56, penetrative capabilities, accomplished intermediate engagement requirements and simply works.

The U.S. could easily develope the perfect 7.62x39 load instead of wasting time on that 300blk, 6.8 or 6.5 nonsense.

Blasphemy!! Of course the biggest problem with the 7.62 x 39 is the military arms designed to fire it are 3-4 MOA guns where the military guns designed to fire the 5.56 are 1-2 MOA guns. In combat is this a issue? It is for 300 yard head shots.


Honestly you dont need a new round. All we need is to accept the MK 262 Mod 1 rounds as standard, at least for the SDM.

You can carry more ammo, have better ballistics with less recoil (faster follow up shots) with a more accurate platform.

There is a reason why the Russians developed the 5.45x 39 and it largely replaced the 7.62 x 39. Because even they where smart enough to know that a smaller, faster cartridge was better in actual combat.

There is also a reason why .22 caliber guns are used in all the match shooting, Because a 5.56 gun is way, way faster on the course than a .30 cal one.

My experience is people who tout the 7.62 x 39 are people who are in love with the AK, not in love with the round but they go together. The AK's claim to fame is it will always fire even full of crackerjacks. Well, this is true, you get a gun that is only designed to run for 4000-6000 rounds and not inherently accurate. This is backed up by the ammo they produce for it guaranteeing the barrel is shot in 6000 rounds. The AK's are disposable guns. This is great for internet fanboys who bash AR's as unreliable and delicate, but not so great in the real world. AR's will shoot MOA out to 600 yards with very little effort (not to say the xM-193 rounds will stop a guy at 600 yards, but I bet a MK 262 round would) Personally I think a AK would make a great choice for a urban combat role where encounters happen under 75 yards. If I was in the wide open spaces there is no way I would choose one over a AR outfitted with MK 262 ammo. I would pick cleaning my rifle once a week over a rifle only capable of 4 MOA any day of the week.

 

[Sam Kinard]

You ever been tagged by an ice pick, or scratch awl? I'd hate to take one in the 3,000fps range anywhere on my body.

The problem with this is that in an actual fight, you need to end the fight as quickly as possible. There are far too many cases of combatants taking several shots from the 5.56 and dying half a mile or more away from where they were shot after taking out a few of your guys(or you). When my life is on the line, I prefer the biggest hammer I can find. If I'm not concerned about ruining the backstrap, loin or rear hams, I want something that will blow the back out of what I am shooting. I want the lights out before the assailant hits the ground. An icepick does not provide that.

 

[IronMonster]

The problem with this is that in an actual fight, you need to end the fight as quickly as possible. There are far too many cases of combatants taking several shots from the 5.56 and dying half a mile or more away from where they were shot after taking out a few of your guys(or you). When my life is on the line, I prefer the biggest hammer I can find. If I'm not concerned about ruining the backstrap, loin or rear hams, I want something that will blow the back out of what I am shooting. I want the lights out before the assailant hits the ground. An icepick does not provide that.

Fine if you are boarded up in your house with a few thousand rounds of ammo taking on the golden horde

You cant have something for nothing. You pack a .308 battle rifle you get twice the carry weight and half the amount of ammo. Slower follow up shots and a more fatigued shooter. In the real world for a real soldier up against a foe with a faster, lighter weapon you will lose.

Talk to a guy who has actually used a 5.56 in combat. I think you will find that in the real world 95% of people shot center mass with a 5.56 go down when hit.

 

[Sam Kinard]

Blasphemy!! Of course the biggest problem with the 7.62 x 39 is the military arms designed to fire it are 3-4 MOA guns where the military guns designed to fire the 5.56 are 1-2 MOA guns. In combat is this a issue? It is for 300 yard head shots.


Honestly you dont need a new round. All we need is to accept the MK 262 Mod 1 rounds as standard, at least for the SDM.

You can carry more ammo, have better ballistics with less recoil (faster follow up shots) with a more accurate platform.

There is a reason why the Russians developed the 5.56 x 39 and it largely replaced the 7.62 x 39. Because even they where smart enough to know that a smaller, faster cartridge was better in actual combat.

My experience is people who tout the 7.62 x 39 are people who are in love with the AK, not in love with the round but they go together. The AK's claim to fame is it will always fire even full of crackerjacks. Well, this is true, you get a gun that is only designed to run for 4000-6000 rounds and not inherently accurate. This is backed up by the ammo they produce for it guaranteeing the barrel is shot in 6000 rounds. The AK's are disposable guns. This is great for internet fanboys who bash AR's as unreliable and delicate, but not so great in the real world. AR's will shoot MOA out to 600 yards with very little effort (not to say the xM-193 rounds will stop a guy at 600 yards, but I bet a MK 262 round would) Personally I think a AK would make a great choice for a urban combat role where encounters happen under 75 yards. If I was in the wide open spaces there is no way I would choose one over a AR outfitted with MK 262 ammo. I would pick cleaning my rifle once a week over a rifle only capable of 4 MOA any day of the week.

The reason the 5.45x39 is "better" than the 7.62x39 is not simply velocity. It is the combination of velocity, a longer steel penetrator than in our Mil-Spec AP rounds and the hollow cavity ahead of the penetrator. Not only will the 7n6 go through steel like butter at 200 meters, it will also yaw upon entering a chest cavity, effectively tumbling after about 2.5" of penetration. They even improved it by filling the cavity with soft lead and designating it the 7n10.

All that aside, I would be crazy to argue 300 yard accuracy between the AR & AK platforms. The AR will absolutely place smaller groups, but will also be hampered by much tighter tolerances. In an actual combat scenario, I will take the AK over the AR every single time. If I had only FMJ ammo, the 7.62 will definitely outgun the 5.56. 600 yard shots taken with your carbine are a rare thing for sure. There are much better tools for sniper type work. Cleaning your rifle once a week is one thing, but needing to clean it in the middle of a firefight and yelling "Timeout!" simply will not do. Rock solid reliability is so much more important than shrinking a group 2 or 3 MOA. What's great about the internet is that fanboys from both sides get to speak their mind. I have used both and if my life were on the line I would pick up the AK. YMMV.

 

[Sam Kinard]

Fine if you are boarded up in your house with a few thousand rounds of ammo taking on the golden horde

You cant have something for nothing. You pack a .308 battle rifle you get twice the carry weight and half the amount of ammo. Slower follow up shots and a more fatigued shooter. In the real world for a real soldier up against a foe with a faster, lighter weapon you will lose.

Talk to a guy who has actually used a 5.56 in combat. I think you will find that in the real world 95% of people shot center mass with a 5.56 go down when hit.

Well, the real world is made up of people like me that have used it in combat. That's where my opinions come from. I don't expect anyone to just agree with me because I said so. This forum is for debate and discussion and we can all learn something. I have no interest in being shot with a .22 short CB cap. However, if I absolutely had to pick between being shot with FMJ 7.62x39 or 5.56x45 I would take the 5.56 every single time.

 

[IronMonster]

Unless you already haven't cleaned your weapon for six months it's not going to stop in the middle of a firefight because it's dirty, Blaming the modern AR Platform and modern ammo for the same shortfall is is they had in Vietnam is like blaming a modern Ford pick up for the shortcomings of a model T.


Before you comment on the ARs reliability when not cleaned read up on "filthy 14"

 

[IronMonster]

Both platforms and cartridges have pros and cons. I haven't used either in combat all my information is secondhand. Hopefully I will never have to put my opinions to the test.


It goes both ways though. If I had to pick from being shot at by a 7.62 x 39 Ak or a 5.56 AR from 300 yards away. I would pick the AK every time.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

Blasphemy!! Of course the biggest problem with the 7.62 x 39 is the military arms designed to fire it are 3-4 MOA guns where the military guns designed to fire the 5.56 are 1-2 MOA guns. In combat is this a issue? It is for 300 yard head shots.


Honestly you dont need a new round. All we need is to accept the MK 262 Mod 1 rounds as standard, at least for the SDM.

You can carry more ammo, have better ballistics with less recoil (faster follow up shots) with a more accurate platform.

There is a reason why the Russians developed the 5.56 x 39 and it largely replaced the 7.62 x 39. Because even they where smart enough to know that a smaller, faster cartridge was better in actual combat.

There is also a reason why .22 caliber guns are used in all the match shooting, Because a 5.56 gun is way, way faster on the course than a .30 cal one.

My experience is people who tout the 7.62 x 39 are people who are in love with the AK, not in love with the round but they go together. The AK's claim to fame is it will always fire even full of crackerjacks. Well, this is true, you get a gun that is only designed to run for 4000-6000 rounds and not inherently accurate. This is backed up by the ammo they produce for it guaranteeing the barrel is shot in 6000 rounds. The AK's are disposable guns. This is great for internet fanboys who bash AR's as unreliable and delicate, but not so great in the real world. AR's will shoot MOA out to 600 yards with very little effort (not to say the xM-193 rounds will stop a guy at 600 yards, but I bet a MK 262 round would) Personally I think a AK would make a great choice for a urban combat role where encounters happen under 75 yards. If I was in the wide open spaces there is no way I would choose one over a AR outfitted with MK 262 ammo. I would pick cleaning my rifle once a week over a rifle only capable of 4 MOA any day of the week.

The only issue I have with other 7.62x39 chambered rifles (aside from the sig 556r) is that most don't function as reliably as an AK, be it from the platform or the mag (usually the mag)..

Ultimately, innovations applied to the AK rifle have taken it far beyond that bullet hose it was once thought to be.

Secondly, the 5.45 load is even more unstable after penetrating or grazing a solid object than the 5.56. Granted it's yaw was designed for hitting fleshy tissue (as was the 5.56) it's never really been meant for urban combat. It's a high velocity varmint round.

IMO, I'd prefer a round that turns cover into concealment. And with our applied rifle innovations, manufacturing more accurate and devistating 7.62x39 rounds isn't out of reach.

Granted, I am an AK fan boy, there is truly something to be said about the 7.62x39 and it's very robust and reliable delivery system.

But this is quickly turning into a 7.62x39 versus 5.56x45 thread so I'll stop.

 

[Sam Kinard]

I'm sorry, I wasn't in Vietnam and am thankful that at least we didn't have to deal with those POS's in the desert. 2004 Iraq and Afghanistan were so different than the jungle. Either way, the AK ran splendidly in both places.

In lab tests you can get a Hi-Point to run thousands of rounds without malfunction. It still wouldn't be my first choice to defend my life. I still wish the hole in the barrel of the M4 was bigger and it is more likely to fail than an AK, though I will definitely agree that VAST improvements have been made since the '60's. It should be noted that Eugene Stoner himself was not happy with his design being scaled down to .223. Some say he disliked it enough to quit Armalite and go work for Colt in '61. Like I said before, if we could use expanding ammo the 5.56 would be devastating.

So I guess I'm not on about the shortcomings of the Model T. It's more like the shortcomings of the Edsel when a Corvette could be had, for the sake of analogies. As private citizens capable of owning armor penetrating rounds and expanding, the 5.56 is a formidable weapon. I guess in the end I'm more against the smaller bore diameter than platform(in a military setting only allowing FMJ), though I completely acknowledge a bias toward the AK.

 

[IronMonster]

Has anyone read up on the MK 262 Mod 1 ammo? It seems to me to be the quick and simple answer

 

[Sam Kinard]

Has anyone read up on the MK 262 Mod 1 ammo? It seems to me to be the quick and simple answer

I know that adding the cannelure just about made it the best military 5.56 round out there, but I personally have no experience with it. It sounds like the real deal if your barrel twist works.

 

[DeanMk]

I recently came across an article on TheFirearmBlog about an ultimate caliber, discussing the push for an new intermediate cartridge for military use, found here: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/09/30/weekly-dtic-2/. The article also linked to the OP's personal blog, with a post from late last year: http://196800revolutionsperminute.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-case-against-general-purpose.html. I'd like to share my own opinions as well as see what the rest of you might be thinking as far as a new military cartridge goes.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the author on many of his points, I felt that he was being a smidge too close-minded about some of the more recent developments in cartridge design as well as some of his complaints. Specifically, his dislike of the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel, in the role of a military caliber. The main issue I see with both of these calibers is that they were designed as a retro-fit conversion to an existing system, the AR-15 platform. Simply put, if Bill Alexander or Remington hadn't concerned themselves with fitting these rounds into an AR-15's action, holding to the overall PSI of 55,000, or in a stanag magazine dimension, they would be very different in O.A.C.L. as well as case capacity. Looking specifically at the Grendel, with an overall max length of 2.260" the case only holds 30-34 grains of water. Simply increasing the overall length to 3" would allow for a decent increase of capacity, but would negate any chance of utilizing the caliber without a tailored rifle design. The only downfall is that if the military decided on a brand new caliber, they would also need a new rifle design.

I agree with the author on his rejection of an ultimate, single caliber for every job, but do believe that there're superior alternatives to our current military cartridges. I also do see the utility of the 6.5 grendel, specifically in a military setting. However, it would require considerably more training on the part of the armed forces to use those benefits, and there would be considerable diminishing returns for this kind of ranged training. I still think this cartridge does hold value for the military, simply because the range would be there, if necessary, without much in the way of downsides.

He also comments on the fact that current factory offerings are anemic in velocity and performance, the grendel's SAAMI spec 30 degree complex throat, the lack of ability to utilize tracers or non lead based projectiles as well as being a straight walled cartridge. To all of these, I think he is making mountains out of mole hills. If the Grendel ever reaches mainstream acceptance, factory loads would become exponentially better, also allowing for tailor made powders and projectile combinations, simply through supply and demand. Both Barnes and Nosler make 6.5mm lead free offerings, both of which are quite effective in both expansion and penetration, though our military forces will probably never use expanding ammunition in general practice. And while a tapered case allows for more reliable extraction, the 5.56 NATO is a straight walled case, I don't see the relevance here. As for the complex throat, decide which grain weight of projectile(s) you want to use, and make a new throat to accommodate only those.

What do you guys think? Is there a caliber or cartridge to rule them all? Are my points valid or are the blog postings correct, there really is nothing better out there than the 5.56 and 7.62x51?

My feeling is that the different segements of the military have become so specialized, that the idea of a single cartridge to cover all needs has gone the way the of the Dodo.
The infantrymen have their own specialized needs that are different from a sniper or a tanker.
The closest we can get is outfit them all with the same sidearm, because the use that weapon was designed for doesn't change as one's assignment does.
...and as for the (now decades old) argument for what to replace the M9 with, my vote would be the <broken link removed> in .40 S&W.


Dean

 

[DeanMk]

Matter of fact, yes, and it wasn't fun. Not sayin' FMJ will bounce off you, just that there are more effective loads.

Geneva Convention outlawed the use of anything other than FMJ bullets for military use a long time ago.
This is why all nations use FMJ bullets only.


Dean

 

[3MTA3]

Geneva Convention outlawed the use of anything other than FMJ bullets for military use a long time ago.
This is why all nations use FMJ bullets only.


Dean

I actually just got schooled on this on another forum... The Geneva Convention does not outlaw anything other than FMJ, it outlaws expanding bullets or bullets designed to deform and cause massive internal injuries. FMJ's are just one way, probably the most cost effective way, of doing that. It's a nitpick... The other thing I learned is that the US is the only major power that did not sign the Geneva Convention, though for the most part we abide by it.

 

[DeanMk]

You are correct. Apologies for not wording my prior post better.
However, of all the different types of "single projectiles" out there, if you remove any that fall under the heading of "expanding bullet" and "bullet designed to deform and cause massive internal injury", what are you left with?
A slug, like an FMJ....of course, I suppose you don't necessarily have to jacket that slug.


Dean