Duck Hunters' Forum Sponsors

Goodbye 5.56?

Discussion in 'The Duck Hunters Forum' started by The Other David, Apr 10, 2019.

  1. Old Carver

    Old Carver Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    136
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2016
    Location:
    North Pole Alaska
    Agree whole heartedly. Fired several AK's on full auto while in Iraq and Afghanistan. They climb and I mean fast. M4 on 3 rd burst was much more controllable.
    Not a huge fan of full auto and did not care fire 3 rd burst. But I grew up with single shots and side by sides. After several other of uncles schools I learned to fire as few rounds as possible and go to ground.
    A 6.5 grendel would work well on 3rd burst. Anything bigger you have control problems and it's just pray and spray.
    My school of thought is staying with small calibers will facilitate more spraying of ammo everywhere. A larger round will be well suited to disciplined shooters. Two schools of thought. Scared youngsters will go through mag after mag. Experienced combat troops pick their shots. Guess what we have more of.

    It's a difficult call that many of the folks in DoD acquisitions have to juggle. What fits in the most situations? Not a call that can be made lightly.
    Should be interesting to see what the services choose. So many moving parts (NATO,UN, allies, inter-service capatibility etc) not a simple switch scenario.
     
    The Other David likes this.
  2. Steelshot Scott

    Steelshot Scott Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Location:
    NC
    Carver, I understand your thinking. But scared youngsters will be scared no matter what ammo they are carrying. They will spray ammo whether they have a little or a lot. With a little, they die quicker. Seasoned troops will pick out their shots, no matter what ammo they are carrying. With the 5.56, they are carrying more.

    Our military has put a lot of men in the ground worrying about wasted ammo.

    Little Big Horn, men were armed with single shot rifles so they "wouldn't spray ammo". Indians were armed with Winchester rifles. Complete massacre.

    Spanish American War, Spanish troops armed with the Mauser(which was quickly reloaded with stripper clips). American troops armed with the Krag(which was reloaded with a clumsy loading gate on the side of the receiver so "the men won't waste ammo"). We took large numbers of casualties unnecessarily.

    WWII, men armed with the M1 Garand. It was originally designed to fire a smaller round(so men could carry more ammo) and to be reloaded via a box magazine. Both were changed because the brass wanted a bigger round and the en bloc clip was designed to "prevent men from wasting ammo". The result was a rifle that could not be topped off during a lull in the fighting, announced when it was empty with a loud "ping" and only allowed the troops to carry limited ammo. The Germans on the other hand, armed their troops with machine pistols as fast as they could get them to them. They developed the worlds first assault rifle, the Sturmgewehr 44. It fired a small cartridge and was very effective. Americans would ditch their Garands for a STG 44 as fast as they could find them. If they had started the war with this weapon, the war might have ended differently. Hitler was a lunatic, but he was also a combat veteran. He understood one undeniable truth. The side that puts the most lead down range usually wins the battle. Something our brass has a tendency to not understand.

    We have been carrying the M-16 and it's variants now for almost 50 years. This is the longest service life of any modern military long arm in US service. When we went to the 5.56 we learned a valuable lesson about the reality of battle rifles, one that has made the M-16 the greatest battle rifle ever fielded. But this success has led to a tendency to forget the lessons of the past. The M-16 is a victim of it's own success. It has worked so well that now people are trying to second guess it's design and try to overcome perceived shortfalls. No round is perfect in every scenario. When you see the insufficiency of a round in one instance, there is a tendency to see where another would have done it better(in that instance) without taking into consideration the big picture. Overall adaptability. Ability to carry more ammo. The inherent accuracy of the round and the rifle.

    The M-16 is a victim of it's own success.
     
  3. Old Carver

    Old Carver Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    136
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2016
    Location:
    North Pole Alaska
    Excellent points. Thanks.
     
  4. Fowler267

    Fowler267 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    11,771
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Specific weapons are fine for the Special Ops but plain old Infantry companies create a supply nightmare with every weapon being a different caliber. Logistics is often the key to victory.... An old saying goes that amateurs study tactics... Professionals study logistics...
     
    The Other David likes this.
  5. Fowler267

    Fowler267 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    11,771
    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2016
    Actually Hitler opposed the idea of an assault rifle with the shorter range round. Adolf wanted each rifle to be cable of 1000 yard shots. They invented the assault weapon and gave it the name of Storm Rifle(Sturm Gewear) to please Hitler. He liked it better upon seeing it in action.

    The M1 was originally designed for .276 Pederson IIRC? MacArthur wanted to stick with 30-06 because it was the middle of the depression and we had millions of rounds of 30 cal
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2019
    Bear likes this.
  6. Steelshot Scott

    Steelshot Scott Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Location:
    NC
    Hitler was opposed to the development of any rifle. At first. He wanted small caliber arms that fired at fast rates of fire that were quick to reload. He did not realize that the STG 44 was the perfect combo of rifle and machine pistol. At first the military hid the rifle's existence by calling it a machine pistol. When interviewing troops from the Russian Front, Hitler asked the commanders what they needed to win and the reply was "More of those new rifles". The cat was out of the bag. Hitler then inspected the weapon and gave it his blessing.

    I knew all this, but I did not think it relevant to the point I was making. I was trying to be clear in my message and did not want to put in too many confusing details that were not relevant to the outcome of the story.

    MacArthur used the excuse of the availability of 30.06 ammo, but in reality, he wanted a big,long range, man-killing bullet. Just like the military has had going back to the Revolution.

    The stories of the M-16's lack of dependability came from early in the deployment of the rifle to Vietnam. The military sent it into combat with no cleaning kits, claiming the rifle was "self-cleaning". They removed the front sights from the rifle during testing so they would fail accuracy standards.They changed the powder in the cartridge to a type of powder that burned much dirtier and ordered that the chrome chambers be discontinued so that the guns would jam. They were hoping the mounting American deaths would force MacNamara to bring back the M-14, which the military brass loved. Large caliber. Wood and blue steel. Looked good on the parade ground.

    Their thinking was thousands of deaths now can prevent tens of thousands later.
     
    Fowler267 likes this.
  7. Steelshot Scott

    Steelshot Scott Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Location:
    NC
    When I say Hitler was opposed to any rifle, I mean from 1943 on. He had decreed that all long arm development be halted(for new weapons) and all resources be put into machine pistols. The armament industry in Germany hid the development and the manufacture of the STG 44 from Hitler by calling the STG 44 a machine pistol. Hitler wanted rapid fire weapons in the hands of his troops as quickly as possible. Germany had been looking for a replacement to the Mauser for years, the only reason it hadn't been done already was expense and logistical in nature. The bolt action rifle was obsolete before the war started. When he saw a STG in person, he was delighted. He actually coined the phrase "assault rifle" himself.

    Hitler expected a quick and decisive war. That is why he did not wait to get the Messerschmidt jet fighter to the Luftwaffe before going to war. Goering wanted another year before declaring war for that purpose.That is why he did not wait until he had automatic weapons in the hands of all his troops. He made the strategic mistake of not conquering England before attacking Russia. Had he done that, he would have likely won the war in Europe and we would have been unable to dislodge him.

    Hitler also took a different view towards pistols that the US military and even the German military at the time(and now). Military brass only issued handguns to officers and servicemen in certain billets. Pilots,tankers, drivers, and officers. The German military didn't issue their officers long guns because they wanted them directing battle, not participating in it. Hitler saw the pistol as a legitimate weapon in it's own right. That is why you see so many pictures of Germans in combat with P-38's.

    The American military decried the STG 44 as shoddy and ineffective. That was because they feared the concept spreading to the US military. Because men would "waste ammo". The STG was a marvelous weapon and if you look at the AK, you can see on it's face the AK is nothing but a cheap copy of the STG 44. This same line of thinking is what led to the sabotage(and that is what it was) of the M-16 when it was sent into combat.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
    Fowler267 likes this.
  8. TheDuckSlayer

    TheDuckSlayer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    21,329
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2002
    Location:
    Mobile Delta
    Wait... who is “they?” Are you seriously suggesting American munitions were sabotaged by Americans in order to cause more American KIA’s?
     
  9. Steelshot Scott

    Steelshot Scott Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,543
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2012
    Location:
    NC
    I am not suggesting it, I am saying it. The military was adamantly opposed the the adaptation of the M-16. When it went for testing, people from the military(and I don't know who by name, I just know it was done) removed the front sights and replaced them with pieces of welding rods so they would not meet the accuracy standards. There was a complete story on this on The History Channel about 10 years ago. The M-16 was provided with a weapons cleaning kit. They were removed from the rifles before they were shipped to Vietnam. The fact that the M-16 was designed to have a chrome bore that was removed and that the ammo was changed to a dirtier burning type is established history. I have seen articles and the same show on The History Channel covered this as well.

    It was thought a few casualties now to prevent more in the long run. An attempt to remove the rifle from service "before it did too much damage". Orchestrated failure to prevent the adaptation of the M-16. Because "a plastic gun is a piece of junk".
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2019
  10. Bear

    Bear Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    43,661
    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Location:
    God Bless Texas!!!
    They weren't looking for a wounding round they were looking for a round that produced casualties. Shots fired per hits based on the Salvo Project.

    However that said a .22LR meets the old Army capacity to produce a mortal wound out past 500 yards.

    I believe this caliber upgrade has been looked at several times before but the logistics of bringing all of NATO into a new round...training and weapon system is beyond practical.
     
    widgeon likes this.

Share This Page