The US military needs something more accurate, lethal and reliable than the M4

[dom1104]

Thank you very much. I always get ripped for trashing the 5.56. If Jeremy is really in The Military this would be the first time I have heard a soldier say the 5.56 is a good round. Just remember some of the best football coaches never even played the game.

Then I would respectfully say you havent been around many soldiers.

The business of killing has been getting done with the 5.56 longer than some of us have been alive.

Real shooters talk software not hardware.

Guys in the rear argue about bullet sizes, while the real killers are deadly with whatever weapon they might carry.

What you shoot matters little.
How you shoot matters much.
These are not the droids you are looking for.

 

[Socomike]

Amen

I do not agree

 

[Sticky]

I was in-country for 3 consecutive tours, 70-73. Almost everyone, where I was active, voiced a preference for the 7.62 (.308 Win.) over the 5.56. In fact, even the AK was more popular than the M16. I'm not talking about the boys back at HQ. I mean the average grunt in the field. Of course, back then, USMC recruits were all trained and range-qualified with the M14 in basic training; which may or may not explain it's popularity in the field. The M14 still remains in limited front line service, for good reason.

For ranges from 500-1000 meters, see which of those 3 calibers a sniper would choose for best effectiveness. I wouldn't use a .223 past 300-400 meters on coyotes.

The main argument given to us was the lighter weight of the M16 rifle. Given a choice; I did, and still would, pick the M14 over the M16. The weight difference, when compared to that of a field/combat pack, is insignificant.

We've already had something more lethal and reliable than a M16, so I expect the next choice will also be for other reasons. Economics or weight, maybe.

 

[ssgjason]

I do not agree

I see where you are coming from. I appreciate what you do. I could not do it. It was more in reference to a comment from early.
I have an 8 identifier and was the NBC NCO for HHQ, so I probably shot myself in the foot there...

 

[kedie]

Ya, well I got a catapult that shoots Waffle Irons!

All that does is deliver a delicious breakfast to the enemy.

 

[jeremy]

Ya, well I got a catapult that shoots Waffle Irons!

My wife will not let me have a Catapult...

 

[jeremy]

Thank you very much. I always get ripped for trashing the 5.56. If Jeremy is really in The Military this would be the first time I have heard a soldier say the 5.56 is a good round. Just remember some of the best football coaches never even played the game.

Most of the "Soldiers" I have heard trashing the 5.56 Round are Fobbits anyway. But what the hell do I know since I have never "played the Game"...

 

[jeremy]

I was in-country for 3 consecutive tours, 70-73. Almost everyone, where I was active, voiced a preference for the 7.62 (.308 Win.) over the 5.56. In fact, even the AK was more popular than the M16. I'm not talking about the boys back at HQ. I mean the average grunt in the field. Of course, back then, USMC recruits were all trained and range-qualified with the M14 in basic training; which may or may not explain it's popularity in the field. The M14 still remains in limited front line service, for good reason.

A lot has changed in 4 Decades...

For ranges from 500-1000 meters, see which of those 3 calibers a sniper would choose for best effectiveness. I wouldn't use a .223 past 300-400 meters on coyotes..

Why not I commonly have used a 5.56 to bust coyotes out to 700-800 meters, I have taken Hogs and Deer with it as well with never a problem...

 

[Rampdog]

Thank you very much. I always get ripped for trashing the 5.56. If Jeremy is really in The Military this would be the first time I have heard a soldier say the 5.56 is a good round. Just remember some of the best football coaches never even played the game.

Perhaps you should talk to more soldiers then? I never had a problem with the venerable little cartridge. It'll definately get the job done. There are untold thousands of our enemy who would concur if they could still talk...or walk, or breathe.......

 

[451_Detonics]

As a Cav Scout I never felt I was under armed with the 5.56. As far as changing calibers today...

We spent years talking all of our NATO allies into the 5.56 round...only way we will ever change is for all of NATO to agree to change as well. I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

If we are keeping the nato round then we need a superior weapon. The Tavor or Micro Tavor has been proven to be better than the M4 by my brothers in Israel. The down side is the cost. Not that we should put a price on a soldiers life.

 

[gunowner930]

Kelevra- "the downside is cost."

^this is why our military won't go with the tavor or anything else available today. I can't see them going with a bullpup design either.

 

[Kelevra TAR-21]

Kelevra- "the downside is cost."

^this is why our military won't go with the tavor or anything else available today. I can't see them going with a bullpup design either.

I don't know why. It has been proven to be more accurate and more reliable than the M4. Both were used in battle in Israel and The Micro Tavor won out. It is now the standard gun used by The I.D.F as of this year. We in The United States like to play war from time to time. Israelis live it night and day everyday. They know the business of war better than anyone.

 

[D-Bo]

I used my M4 to stop cars a lot in Iraq, 40mm 203 works good at stoping things.

 

[jeremy]

I don't know why. It has been proven to be more accurate and more reliable than the M4. Both were used in battle in Israel and The Micro Tavor won out.

Not quite there hero, might want to research that just a little bit more before you make that claim...
There is a huge difference in how each system is used, not to mention is not the Tavor 2 a 9mm?!

We in The United States like to play war from time to time. Israelis live it night and day everyday. They know the business of war better than anyone.

It is hardly armed conflict in Israel night and day.

 

[MilitaryArms]

And one of the 5.56x45 myths that just won't die pops up again. Can anybody actually cite a government source that states that the 5.56x45 was designed to wound, and not kill?

No, because it doesn't exist. The US Government never mentioned any such requirement in any official document, ever. Nor was it taught to anyone I ever served with that you were to try and wound the enemy in combat, regardless of the round used.

But it gets repeated as fact over and over so it will likely never die.

The M16 has served our nation for 46+ years, longer than any other rifle in our history. I don't believe that is by accident. It's one of the best service rifles we've ever fielded.

However, if we're going to pick a new service rifle I do believe we need to step away from the AR platform. I don't believe the solution is to hack-n-slash the M16 into some abomination like we did with the M1/M14.

I wrote a blog post about this recently.

Military Arms Blog: It's time to say goodbye.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Bullpups aren't ready for prime time in the US Military. The Tavor suffers from the same problem that other bullpup designs suffer from - the ejection port being designed for right handed use primarily.

In CQB you need to transition from left and right side use frequently. Having a rifle kick spent casings into your face isn't conducive to accurate fire when in the heat of battle. The F2000 addresses this issue, but even the F2000 has its issues and I don't believe it's a suitable weapon system either.

I see no reason to adopt a bullpup as a general issue rifle.

I have high hopes for the ACR and SCAR. I'm sure as the next 3 years transpire these two weapons systems will evolve into world class systems worthy of adoption.

 

[downzero]

There is nothing more accurate, lethal, and reliable than the M4.

I once thought otherwise, but years of shooting the AR-15 has changed my mind. It is more ergonomic, more accuate, and just as reliable as any other weapons system.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

If we are keeping the nato round then we need a superior weapon. The Tavor or Micro Tavor has been proven to be better than the M4 by my brothers in Israel. The down side is the cost. Not that we should put a price on a soldiers life.

I think Mac shot one of these on FutureWeapons. Made an unsupported headshot at 300 meters with the first round, pending you don't believe in "creative editing". Badazz rifle for sure. I think Israel's name should be changed to Sparta, at least unofficialy lol

 

[Sticky]

A lot has changed in 4 Decades...

The reaction to being hit with a thirty caliber medium/large game round vs a 22 caliber varmint round, hasn't changed at all in well over 40 years. I probably saw dozens, if not hundreds, of cadavers (and live bodies too) shot with .223, 7.62 AK, and 7.62 (.308 Win.) through an M14 and M60. Most often, the .30 caliber damage was much more impressive; especially the damage caused when bone was hit. The .223 did a good job sometimes, but the .30's just impressed me a whole lot more. They usually did an obviously messier hit.

Why not I commonly have used a 5.56 to bust coyotes out to 700-800 meters, I have taken Hogs and Deer with it as well with never a problem...

Why? Because small errors in wind and range estimation are much more critical with the .223; especially at medium/long ranges. A 2-3 mph error in 90 degree crosswind estimation at range can equal a miss with the .223 where the same situation with a .308 will be a hit. That's on a larger man-sized target. Misses by wind and range error happen much more often as the target gets smaller; like groundhogs, coyotes, or prairie dogs. For varmint shooting in windy areas, almost anything bigger than .22 caliber works better. The longer the range, the better larger calibers work, in practical application. Not a big issue when hunting as opposed to military use, except that a killing shot in each can instead turn into a peripheral hit.

At 400 meters plus I find the .223 underpowered for good shots on coyotes. The .308 simply has more punch. The .308 generally opens up the far side of a coyote at 300 plus, while the .223 generally doesn't (assuming equal bullet types). Try both on something like bear or elk and see which has more demonstrated power and greater ease of making long range hits, with equal accuracy, under field conditions.

The long time varmint hunters generally fore-go the .222 and .223 when most of the shots are past ~300 meters; switching to the .22/250, the Swift, .243, .257, .25-06, and even the .308 for the above reasons.

Of course all of the above explains why super-long range shooting, by military snipers and hobbyists, is done with even better cartridges like the .300 Winchester Magnum and .50 BMG. Those will likely never be seen on a general-issue rifle because the degree of training, logistics, cost, and level of recoil (rifle weight) is too excessive.

I think of the .223 vs. .308 rifle argument as being analogous to the .22LR vs. .36 caliber (9mm) self-defense pistol. In both cases, I prefer the larger versions for social use, and the smaller versions for close range small game hunting.

A man-portable railgun sounds like a winner if it ever gets developed.