Our Next Battle Rifle Improvement Should Be A New Cartridge
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 11 months ago
So says John Farnam:
The 5.56×45 cartridge (“militarized” version of the 223 Rem) lacks adequate range and penetration for military applications. This range/penetration problem is not soluble within that caliber, and never will be!
For domestic law enforcement and personal defense, the 5.56×45 is acceptable.
But, in a battle rifle, the 5.56 comes up short. I’ve lived through a least half-dozen attempts to “improve” the cartridge, and provide it with satisfactory range and penetration. Each succeeding “wonder bullet,” despite all the promotion, has failed to live up to the hype!
The Pentagon needs to worry less about a new rifle, and more about a new caliber!
We need, once more, a 500m rifle that shoots bullets that actually go THROUGH things! We don’t have anything close to that now!
This is ridiculous. The Army doesn’t even teach their soldiers to shoot 500 yards, much less can they afford the weight of carrying around heavier ammunition.
The Marine Corps doesn’t need it because they teach their Marines to shoot 500 yards and the 5.56m does fine. Furthermore, they rely on designated marksmen for longer range shooting anyway, and some of the time they use .308 but some of the time they use 5.56mm. For the really long range applications, they shoot a .50 Sasser.
This is a tired argument. Before anyone makes this claim again, they need to teach soldiers to shoot and see how it goes. If you want something heavier, switch to the 77 gr. Sierra Match King. Much of the enemy shoots 7.62X39, and Russia shoots 5.45mm. You don’t hear them complaining.
On January 24, 2018 at 12:11 am, McThag said:
Hey now! The Army taught me to shoot at much longer ranges than 500 yards.
I’ve made a 3km shot!
It was with an M68 105mm rifle on an M1(IP)…
I’m so sick of these articles about how outranged our rifles are when the entire point of combined arms is for a different weapon to take over shortly before the max effective range of the previous weapon is reached.
The small arms aren’t supposed to do the work of light artillery, like the mortars that are supposed to be organic to the battalion and assigned at the company level.
I mean, we’re not hearing complaints that the 60mm mortars can’t reach out like 155mm… but we’re complaining that our 5.56 can’t go where we intended our 60mm to have taken over hundreds of meters ago?
I think we need to start applying our doctrines as intended.
On January 24, 2018 at 8:25 am, Ned said:
Seems like every week on TFB there’s a new post about the military looking for a new rifle/cartridge combination.
All argument about caliber/effectiveness aside – unless there’s some insider deal, given the military’s procurement history, I can’t see a contractor even bidding for this crap.
On January 24, 2018 at 5:17 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
As usual, the army – “Big Green” – is attacking the problem from the wrong angle.
The proprietor of this blog is absolutely right; the army has no business looking at a new cartridge, let alone a new rifle, until it commits greater resources to marksmanship training and the facilities and gear for the same. Handing the latest and greatest new whiz-bang rifle to the soldiers and soldierettes will make no difference whatsoever if they can’t shoot well.
And even in the event that a new rifle may be desirable, the brass are going at it backwards. Any firearms designer worth his calculator knows that you build firearms outward from the cartridge – and not the reverse. And before you choose a cartridge, you have to think hard about what will be required of it, as well your financial and other resources.
Call me a cynic, but the near-constant calls for a new rifle program aren’t about doing what’s right for the grunts; they’re fundamentally about getting some admiral or general somewhere his next star and bump in rank.
Try this for an idea: Put the Marine Corps in charge of all marksmanship training for the army as well as the Corps, and do it yesterday!
And cut some of the general officer billets; there are too many flag officers running around spreading nonsense in their wake. The army, air force and navy could lose half of their admirals/generals tomorrow and still function equally as well.
On January 24, 2018 at 5:28 pm, Gryphon said:
Not having been a ‘Professional Soldier’, I look at this running debate with some amusement- as a Professional Mechanic, USE THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE JOB!
McThag got it Right- The Weapons Systems for an Organized Military cover the Tasks for all Ranges, and the constant Carping about essentially that a Carbine (short Rifle with low-power Cartridges) should be capable of doing things that a .30-caliber + Weapon does is not a useful place for Tax Dollars to be Spent. (but Maybe that’s all it’s about, perhaps?)
For My personal security, I have 9 & .45 Pistols, and an SBR in 5.56. (well, an ‘AR Pistol, with Brace’), and if I’m going to Shoot stuff over 300 Meters, it’s the M-1A in 7.62. How hard is this for the Military to figure out?