05-04-2011, 08:40 AM
Thanks for taking the time to post that. I don't have any personal experience of examining 5.56mm wounds, and I don't doubt what you say. I've also been careful (I hope) to say that, according to the large number of reports I've read from both combat and lab testing, the problem is not that the 5.56mm is ineffective (because it can be extremely effective) but that it is not reliably effective. Of course, no bullet will put down a man first time every time, but the 5.56mm seems to fail more often than most, for reasons which have been demonstrated in gel tests - that unless it is already yawing before impact, it will punch a small hole straight through. The figure I have seen from test results is that 85% of the time, the M855 bullet does not even start to yaw after impact (if it yaws at all) until it has penetrated at least 4.7 inches of gel.
That's on top of the other issues, to do with the 5.56mm's poor barrier penetration, lack of suppressive effect and lack of effective range (which different military sources put at anywhere between 200 and 400 metres, depending partly on barrel length).
These issues with the 5.56mm form only one of three reasons to consider a long-range intermediate round to replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.
The second reason is, as you mention, to replace 7.62mm guns and ammo with something with a comparable long range performance but with significantly less weight and recoil. This motivation has been moving up the agenda in recent years, given the nature of the fighting in Afghanistan, and is now arguably stronger than the case for replacing 5.56mm.
The final reason is the advantages in replacing two calibres and weapon families with one. This would halve the number of different firearms which an infantryman has to become familiar with, saving money on procurement, training and support. It also ensures that all infantrymen are equipped with a rifle or LMG which can be effective at any range, should the tactical circumstances change suddenly, and everyone in a section will be carrying the same ammo (which some soldiers I have heard from regard as an important advantage).
Whether anything will come of all this I don't know, but the calibre debate within the US military and small arms community seems to be hotting up, in the light of the recent ARDEC report and the reported decision over LSAT. I am observing with interest!
That's on top of the other issues, to do with the 5.56mm's poor barrier penetration, lack of suppressive effect and lack of effective range (which different military sources put at anywhere between 200 and 400 metres, depending partly on barrel length).
These issues with the 5.56mm form only one of three reasons to consider a long-range intermediate round to replace both 5.56mm and 7.62mm.
The second reason is, as you mention, to replace 7.62mm guns and ammo with something with a comparable long range performance but with significantly less weight and recoil. This motivation has been moving up the agenda in recent years, given the nature of the fighting in Afghanistan, and is now arguably stronger than the case for replacing 5.56mm.
The final reason is the advantages in replacing two calibres and weapon families with one. This would halve the number of different firearms which an infantryman has to become familiar with, saving money on procurement, training and support. It also ensures that all infantrymen are equipped with a rifle or LMG which can be effective at any range, should the tactical circumstances change suddenly, and everyone in a section will be carrying the same ammo (which some soldiers I have heard from regard as an important advantage).
Whether anything will come of all this I don't know, but the calibre debate within the US military and small arms community seems to be hotting up, in the light of the recent ARDEC report and the reported decision over LSAT. I am observing with interest!