Silver Lifetime
- Messages
- 42,791
- Reactions
- 111,118
I have no disagreement that the .308 or .30-06 are better at stopping an opponent than the 5.56.
But then so is a .300 Magnum, or the .338 Magnum, or the .50 BMG.
I have never said the 5.56x45 was better either in that regard.
What I have said is that there is a middle ground, where the cartridge can be effective enough for the infantry soldier carrying the standard infantry weapon. Where it works in the typical engagement distances of less than 300 meters. Where the cartridge is lighter and the recoil, especially in full auto, is more manageable.
The Germans in WWII and Soviets later, proved this system works. An intermediate powered cartridge in a lighter shorter rifle, capable of controllable full auto fire (especially in short bursts), with the infantry soldier able to carry more ammo.
We went too far the other direction with the 5.56x45, had it pushed on us by bean counters who had never been in a war. We've been trying to make up for that ever since. IF (and it is a big IF), they go to a cartridge with a 6-7mm with a 90 to 130 grain at about 2500 fps, that will be a big improvement over the 5.56x45 and it will be what the British and a few other NATO countries wanted to do back in the 50s and 60s.
I am not a fan of the M16 or its variants for various reasons, but if they go to a 6mm+ cartridge based on the 5.56x45 cartridge (i.e., same rim/head dimensions), and do it right, then they should be able to just change out the barrels and the costs will be kept lower than a complete change to something else.
I personally think it is sad that we spend billions on high cost war fighting machines, but pinch pennies on the rifles we give our war fighters - but without going into the politics (follow the money) - it is what it is.
But then so is a .300 Magnum, or the .338 Magnum, or the .50 BMG.
I have never said the 5.56x45 was better either in that regard.
What I have said is that there is a middle ground, where the cartridge can be effective enough for the infantry soldier carrying the standard infantry weapon. Where it works in the typical engagement distances of less than 300 meters. Where the cartridge is lighter and the recoil, especially in full auto, is more manageable.
The Germans in WWII and Soviets later, proved this system works. An intermediate powered cartridge in a lighter shorter rifle, capable of controllable full auto fire (especially in short bursts), with the infantry soldier able to carry more ammo.
We went too far the other direction with the 5.56x45, had it pushed on us by bean counters who had never been in a war. We've been trying to make up for that ever since. IF (and it is a big IF), they go to a cartridge with a 6-7mm with a 90 to 130 grain at about 2500 fps, that will be a big improvement over the 5.56x45 and it will be what the British and a few other NATO countries wanted to do back in the 50s and 60s.
I am not a fan of the M16 or its variants for various reasons, but if they go to a 6mm+ cartridge based on the 5.56x45 cartridge (i.e., same rim/head dimensions), and do it right, then they should be able to just change out the barrels and the costs will be kept lower than a complete change to something else.
I personally think it is sad that we spend billions on high cost war fighting machines, but pinch pennies on the rifles we give our war fighters - but without going into the politics (follow the money) - it is what it is.