How could or should the 6.5 mm Grendel be improved?

[Trooper]

The 20mm cartridge is rather dated. I remember being part of discussions among us civil servants and military debating whether it made more sense to go with .50 caliber, 20mm, or to 30mm for aircraft cannon.

The argument for .50 cal was similar to that put forward by LRRPF52 -- you need lots of shots.

The argument for 30 mm was that one needs to tear up the opponent's aircraft.

20 mm won out because it was a balance and existed.

The 30mm GAU-8 was adopted because it could sneak through a few weak points in the Soviet T62 tank armor. It won because it as the smallest round that could do the job, never mind that it would take much to completely defeat it. Overlooked by most was the fact that that round makes mincemeat of everything else on the battlefield.

These arguments and the underlying assessments have been going on for an awful long time but I can draw one simple conclusion from them: The round that is adopted will be the smallest one capable of defeating the most heavily armored system in the requirements list.

The GAU-8 history suggests that the round might not be capable of defeating the best body armor, but that the number of hits more or less at random on the soldier so protected will find a spot where he will get hurt. This suggests that the conclusions drawn by LRRPF 52 are reasonable with respect to the 5.56.

Similarly, the Grendel can match the 7.62X51 NATO standard round barrier defeat capability at ranges exceeding a few hundred meters. In close, both overmatch most targets of interest, so the GAU-8 lesson applies here too -- especially for dismounted infantry.

Mounted infantry enjoy a different set of constraints. One path to reducing the logistics burden might be to replace the 90+ year-old .50 caliber round with a more modern version in a smaller caliber. Newer technology would allow that round to exceed the .50 caliber performance at all ranges of significance.

The net result would be three cartridges in place of four: 5.56, Grendel in present form with suitable bullets, and the new heavy machine gun replacing mounted 7.62's and all applications where the .50 cal is used.

The 25mm does a very good job on armor. That is why it is used on the Bradley APC (Bushmaster gun). And many navy ships are now using the 25mm Bushmaster as a replacement for the .50 cal M2.

Logistics is driving everything. Too many systems, too many types of ammo. Better to have one system then carry lots of ammo for it.

[JASmith]

The 25mm system will do a good job on light-armored vehicles, but not likely on heavy armor like main battle tanks.

The difference between 1975 and today is the proliferation of lightweight precision guided weapons that can handle the heavy stuff.

The main point of this and the earlier discussion is that limiting the debate to one mission over-constrains the problem.

The larger picture may indeed have been taken into account as the requirements for a new intermediate caliber round were defined. I don't know if it was, but can hope.

[stanc]

As power goes up, so does recoil, taking us away from an assault rifle.

My conclusions after mulling over this for most of my life are that approaching the small arms mix from the intent to fix assault rifles, is futile, because we have excellent assault rifles currently.

Some people think assault rifles are inadequate for infantry combat, and we should go back to battle rifles -- only this time in a format with lower weight and recoil than possible with 7.62 NATO.

We need to approach it from a big picture new generation of small arms, with fixing the SAW/LMG concept, and making a better DMR/SASS, while employing some other indirect assets lower in the organization. I see the Grendel as a great candidate for addressing the SASS and LMG, while displacing 7.62 NATO to vehicle-mounted only.

I think that would require a change in attitude among military decision makers, a change that IMO seems unlikely. Historical SOP has been one cartridge for individual weapon, sniper rifle, squad automatic weapon, and light machine gun. While that got a little mixed up after 5.56 NATO was fielded, necessitating use of two calibers, I just don't see them adopting 6.5 as a third caliber and keeping both 5.56 and 7.62 in the system.

It seems to me that the only way to get a new rifle/machine gun caliber adopted is as a replacement for one or both current chamberings.

[cory]

My conclusions after mulling over this for most of my life are that approaching the small arms mix from the intent to fix assault rifles, is futile, because we have excellent assault rifles currently.

If we're talking about an assault rifle for the army you have a solid argument. However, for the Marine Corps the 5.56 mm caliber Assault Rifle is Sub-Standard.

Honestly I could go all day making cracks at the Army and other service. (It'd be all in good fun as every veteran here understands.) That's not what I'm trying to do here.

Every Marine is at a MINIMUM a marksman. We hold a high standard of marksmanship in the Corps, which carries over in the field. When a Marine puts two in the chest, there shouldn't be any question in rather he'll be dead within seconds. The Marine Corps has always done more with fewer numbers, and the level of marksmanship has been a critical factor in that.

This is not the philosophy of the Army, as I understand it. The philosophy of the Army has always revolved around numbers. I'm not trying say no one in the Army can shoot, what I'm saying is the Army strategy relies on getting maximum firepower/rounds on target. One hit may not kill the enemy, but ten will.

What I'm trying to get at is upgrading the Army's assault rifles may or may not raise the effectiveness of the solider to make the change beneficial. (I do believe it would, but that's just my patriotic opinion) However, upgrading a Marine's assault rifle would drastically increase his effectiveness, in my professional opinion.

[cory]

I think that would require a change in attitude among military decision makers, a change that IMO seems unlikely. Historical SOP has been one cartridge for individual weapon, sniper rifle, squad automatic weapon, and light machine gun. While that got a little mixed up after 5.56 NATO was fielded, necessitating use of two calibers, I just don't see them adopting 6.5 as a third caliber and keeping both 5.56 and 7.62 in the system.

It seems to me that the only way to get a new rifle/machine gun caliber adopted is as a replacement for one or both current chamberings.

While I share your view on the military mindset, an identical round used in a Infantryman's weapon and a Scout Sniper's weapon just isn't realistic However, a round that's interchangeable might be with the Grendel, IMO.

[Michael]

Cory - I disagree. The 5.56 is not sub-standard – may not be the best, but it is not sub-standard. I did some research on this in ’04 direction of HQMC for a bunch who thought that the round was underpowered/unable to stop the bad guys. What I found was SHOT PLACEMENT MATTERS, or as you said, being a marksman. There was some discussion that using the M855 ammo against an enemy who was not wearing body armor was not very effective, hence the eventual development of the Mk 318 SOST. There was an abundance of first hand, verified accounts of Marine rifle men getting one shot, one kill with the 5.56 rounds at 400-600m in the research I conducted. Mainly attributed to the RCO/ACOG (also remember one case of a soldier with the 2d BCT taking targets out at about 500m with open sights), but in each case, shot placement mattered .

You are correct, the Marine Corps is smaller than the Army, hence it does not have the budget for independent R&D to the extent of the Army. Like it or not, what the Army has, we will also. I do not believe that the DOD/DOA/DON will ever have rifles for the rifleman that are sub MOA. It is cost prohibitive.

Are there better rounds? Probably. Are there better weapons systems? Again, probably. Are we, the U.S. military, in danger of losing a war because of our primary assault weapon/battle rifle? I doubt it. Some tactically incompetent General Officer or politician will cause that.

[LRRPF52]

If we're talking about an assault rifle for the army you have a solid argument. However, for the Marine Corps the 5.56 mm caliber Assault Rifle is Sub-Standard.

Every Marine is at a MINIMUM a marksman. We hold a high standard of marksmanship in the Corps, which carries over in the field. When a Marine puts two in the chest, there shouldn't be any question in rather he'll be dead within seconds. The Marine Corps has always done more with fewer numbers, and the level of marksmanship has been a critical factor in that.

This is not the philosophy of the Army, as I understand it. The philosophy of the Army has always revolved around numbers. I'm not trying say no one in the Army can shoot, what I'm saying is the Army strategy relies on getting maximum firepower/rounds on target. One hit may not kill the enemy, but ten will.

What I'm trying to get at is upgrading the Army's assault rifles may or may not raise the effectiveness of the solider to make the change beneficial. (I do believe it would, but that's just my patriotic opinion) However, upgrading a Marine's assault rifle would drastically increase his effectiveness, in my professional opinion.

The Army's doctrine that drives Rifle marksmanship, with regard to infantry units, is basically the same as the Marines, in that individual riflemen in the infantry squad take well-aimed shots on SEMI only, to reduce targets of opportunity. The Army and Marines rifle marksmanship training approaches have been quite different, but major changes have taken place over the past several years, especially in the areas of including Close Quarters and shoot-move events.

The Army's Qualification range uses pop-up, 3D human silhouettes from 50m to 300m that have minimum exposure times, and need to be successfully engaged within the exposure. The Marines focus on shooting KD ranges out to 500m, learning to read the wind, use of the M16A2 rear sight assembly for elevation, under slow-fire and rapid-fire that are closer to what you would see at an NRA Hi-power match.

I think both systems should be combined, as the skill of being able to shoot accurately quickly, as well as accurately at distance, are both valid. The wind-reading and elevation correction skills should be bread & butter to any combat arms soldier. The reality is that both organizations don't shoot anywhere near enough due to institutional constraints, but it often depends on the unit and the leadership climate.

I can tell you that the Marine's Infantry Officer Course is one of the finest warrior leadership schools available, based on what I've seen, and the Army should emulate it. The problem is that there isn't the leadership initiative in the positions that have the authority to make it happen, because they are not of the warrior cloth or ethos.

There needs to be a balance between close-range, compact carbines, and DMR's, but I don't think a 20" is needed for the DM's, especially when you look at 77gr. Even a 16" works fine. There is great video of Marine DM's with SPR's making head-shots at 400m in Afghanistan, and the Taliban didn't even know where the fire was coming from. The current mix of green tip for riflemen and 77gr for DM's makes a lot of sense.

What doesn't make sense is the 5.56 belt-fed SAW, a 27.6lb 7.62 NATO belt-fed machine gun, and a 7.62 NATO SASS all in the system. Those 3 weapons should be chambered in the same cartridge, while reducing the cartridge size, recoil and projectile wind deflection, but increasing its sectional density and penetration. That is where the Grendel comes into play.

Likelihood of happening? Probably not...

[stanc]

What doesn't make sense is the 5.56 belt-fed SAW, a 27.6lb 7.62 NATO belt-fed machine gun, and a 7.62 NATO SASS all in the system. Those 3 weapons should be chambered in the same cartridge, while reducing the cartridge size, recoil and projectile wind deflection, but increasing its sectional density and penetration. That is where the Grendel comes into play.

Likelihood of happening? Probably not...

IMO, what's needed to give your proposal even a small chance of being implemented is to prove that a Grendel LMG can actually deliver the claimed performance. I don't know how this could be done without building a 6.5 LMG to use in side-by-side comparison tests with the M240.

[Guardsman26]

LRRP52 said: "The UK needs to work with the Scandinavian countries, Baltics, and Visegrad 4 to develop a new set of requirements if they are going to steer a new NATO or non-NATO standardization."

Absolutely. But the UK will do nothing unless the USA does it first. Canada is actively considering alternate calibre's, so a JV between the USA, Canada and the UK is entirely possible.

I have seen the new Radom guns (Poland) the Cz 805 Bren (Czech Republic). They are interesting weapons, but really don't take the assault rifle game on. None is yet as reliable as the G36 or FN SCAR, which have obviously been tested and upgraded over a much longer period of time, making them more reliable and mature designs. I always thought that the XM8 was a very good design because its ergonomics were so good. If only it had been made out of aluminum instead of polymer. Don't expect to see ARs with polymer receivers adopted by the USA, UK or canada anytime soon.

The other very interesting point you make is about weapon recoil. The M16 has about 4 joules of recoil energy with the lighter M4 causing a slightly higher felt-recoil effect due to its lighter weight. The AR10 (L129A1 from LMT) in 7.62 mm has around 16 Joules. The buffer system in the AR10 does a very good job of controlling recoil, but even so no AR10 is controllable when automatic bursts are fired from the shoulder. The maximum recoil that can be easily absorbed is 10-12 Joules. I've confirmed this in tests I've conducted myself using AR15 5.56 mm, AR15 6.8 mm SPC, AR10 7.62 mm, and AKM 7.62 mm x 39. The AKM has around 9-10 Joules of recoil impulse. If you've fired it, then you'll know how easy it is to fire automatic. Similarly the .300 Blackout fired from an AR15 seems equally controllable, so the threshold for bearable recoil is well established.

I haven't shot 6.5 mm Grendel on automatic so any perspectives on this would be interesting and helpful.

[JASmith]

A 9lb (4kg) rifle with 14.5 inch barrel will produce about 8 joules of recoil energy when shooting a 129 gr bullet at near nominal 50ksi pressures.

You can use the recoil calculator at http://shootersnotes.com/calculator/recoil/ to develop your own numbers.

[LRRPF52]

The moment we start talking about shooting an assault rifle on automatic is when we head into usage requirement territory. It's really only appropriate in limited circumstances for dismounted infantry soldiers with an individual service weapon:

* Small Reconnaissance elements during break-contact immediate action drills
* When a belt-fed LMG goes down and a rifleman needs to keep up the rate of fire for mainly psychological reasons, if firepower is how one chooses to fight (and lose)

And those are the only times I used the AUTO or BURST (worthless) features when I was in. We did a lot of AUTO fire for IADs as 4-6man recon teams with the Australian Peel, and as a Team or Squad Leader in an Infantry Line Company, I would switch to BURST when one of my SAWs went down during a critical stage of actions on the objective, but it was very rare.

The 7.62 NATO weapons are clearly not feasible for automatic fire, but the AK is controllable in the hands of someone who knows how to drive a gun, with controlled bursts. A suppressed AK is a pussycat with the right can, but suppressors aren't feasible for general issue to entry-level soldiers on the line.

You can change the controllability of an assault rifle on AUTO if someone would actually make an assault rifle using the operating principle of the original grandaddy of all assault rifles, constant recoil combined with a low cyclic rate of fire, which is the most over-looked set of features of the Sturmgewehr Stg44. Watch what I mean when I say constant recoil+low cyclic rate:

[video]http://youtu.be/2jrlCPq5stE[/video]

[video=youtube;2jrlCPq5stE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jrlCPq5stE[/video]

The benefits of a constant-recoil operating system combined with low cyclic rate are more apparent on AUTO than SEMI, and favor AUTO because you don't have as rapid follow-ups in the SEMI mode due to slower bolt carrier velocity. This is where the AR15 shines, because you can hose away with it on SEMI and run extremely fast follow-ups. The Stg44 didn't need a SEMI mode really, because you could touch off 2rd bursts without any real muzzle climb or significant recoil. It's a design that remains ahead of its time.

If you really want a great assault rifle that goes where none have gone before all in one, you use a lengthened receiver where the bolt carrier never impacts the rear like a j(AK) hammer, has a 4-way fire-control mechanism like the Colt Model 605 carbine, with a 2-round burst as the first position from SAFE, followed by SEMI, then AUTO, and able to go in either direction from SAFE.

Use the elongated longitudinal cam pin track of the AR18 with the carrier, keep the reciprocating parts in-line like an AR15 (no off-axis piston, but in-axis), and employ lightweight materials like the AR15 and SCAR. Barrel should be free-floated entirely like AR15's are, with secure mounting, but ease of change at Company armorer level if the average IQ is 85 or more based on pre-Attention Deficit Generation focal span thresholds.

[montana]

LRRPF52 you are the first person I have notice the AR-18 elongated longitudinal cam pin track. This gives a little longer dwell time but I have also felt it helped negated recoil . I was wondering what your thoughts were on this.

[Guardsman26]

A few points on the (in)effectiveness of 5.56 mm

This appears to be a more controversial subject than it needs to be. Based on the analysis of combat reports from the USA, UK, Germany, New Zealand, Australia and other ISAF units in Afghanistan and to a lesser extent previous experiences in Iraq, the following issues are accepted:

1. M855 5.56 mm NATO ammunition is most effective below 300 metres. Improved M855A1 EPR 5.56 mm ammunition is most effective below 500 metres. That's fine, because 5.56 mm was always designed to perform best below 500 metres. However, the theory that 90% of infantry engagements take place at ranges below 300 metres has now been debunked. UK data relating to Afghanistan states that more than 50% of combat engagements take place at ranges above 300 metres out to a maximum distance of 900 metres. This was true in Kosovo, the Falklands and several other Cold War era skirmishes.

2. It is true to say that most of the killing both with 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm ammunition is still done at ranges below 500 metres, but infantry small arms have another vital role to perform: suppression. Very often it is extremely difficult to pin-point an enemy position, therefore suppression is required to fix the enemy in place while other units manoeuvre into an assault position or supporting air assets or artillery fire is called in. 5.56 mm has a significantly reduced signature versus 7.62 mm (and 6.5 mm Grendel for that matter) so you must miss much closer to an enemy to have a suppressive effect.

3. M855 5.56 mm is highly susceptible to wind drift. On a range at sea level in lab conditions, it is entirely possible to hit a target at 600 metres - even 800 metres if you are a crack shot - but in the mountains of Afghanistan with a gale blowing it can be difficult to hit targets at 200 metres. It is a 4 MOA ammo.

4. M855 5.56 mm is highly susceptible to intermediate barriers that may obscure a target, such as car windscreens, wooden door frames, light masonry and thick foliage. The increasing use of body armour is also an issue.

5. In terms of terminal effectiveness, the yaw characteristics of 5.56 mm are dependent on striking velocity and angle of attack. The only way to increase terminal effectiveness is to ensure the projectile fragments. Soldiers have reported repeated instances of through-and-through shots that do not cause sufficient wounding to incapacitate.

6. Any unit equipped only with 5.56 mm weapons, will be overmatched by an enemy using full power weapons and ammunition. The Taliban has been using Russian-made PKMs and SVDs to engage ISAF units at ranges whether the latter cannot return fire. This happened time and again from 2006 and until 7.62 mm weapons were readopted at squad level.

All of these concerns should we well know to forum members here. They're reason why the US army developed the M855A1 EPR. Even though the the EPR is better, it still isn't a match for full-calibre ammunition 7.62 mm and above.

Personally, I tend to agree with Cory here. I think that 5.56 mm is useless in anything other than a PDW / SMG role. I'd love to see 6.5 Grendel adopted across the board - it would be a much better solution even though it cannot be a standalone round. The only issue I have about Grendel uppers slotted onto existing M4 weapons is that they restrict magazine capacity to 25 rounds. A slighter larger receiver and magazine well could allow wider magazines and a 30 round capacity.

The UK Royal Marines want either a new calibre or the wholesales return to 7.62 mm for their next generation weapons.

When it comes to the politics of adoption, it is the Special Forces community who are most driving innovation in calibers and weapons. They like weapons such as the HK417 but are well aware of the weight and recoil penalty it imposes. They frequently fire automatic bursts BTW. Offer them a new round and they'll certainly try it. The .300 Blackout is a prime example. When a new weapon system proves itself it soon achieves a wider currency.

[stanc]

The only issue I have about Grendel uppers slotted onto existing M4 weapons is that they restrict magazine capacity to 25 rounds. A slighter larger receiver and magazine well could allow wider magazines and a 30 round capacity.

With the current stainless steel magazines, capacity is a function of height, not width. Capacity could easily be increased to 30 rounds by making the magazine a bit taller, as was done with the 30-rd Barrett 6.8 SPC mag.

A wider mag well would only be necessary if it were desired to have a 6.5 P-Mag.

[stanc]

Any unit equipped only with 5.56 mm weapons, will be overmatched by an enemy using full power weapons and ammunition.

Sorta like this? :eek:

[video=youtube;rLHU-_OhT8g]www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLHU-_OhT8g[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLHU-_OhT8g

[Michael]

6. Any unit equipped only with 5.56 mm weapons, will be overmatched by an enemy using full power weapons and ammunition. The Taliban has been using Russian-made PKMs and SVDs to engage ISAF units at ranges whether the latter cannot return fire. This happened time and again from 2006 and until 7.62 mm weapons were readopted at squad level.

I am not a ballistics expert but I can see the shortcomings in the 5.56 round. I do consider myself fairly knowable on the nation’s enemies/potential enemies – that’s part of my job. Which of our adversaries, or projected adversaries, are using 'full power' weapons? The preponderance of forces we will fight against/are projected to fight against are equipped with 7.62x39/5.54x39 AK style weapons. The 5.56 is comparable ballistic-wise to these weapons and superior when you talk accuracy beyond 100m. The short sight radius on the AK family, combined with the stamping manufacturing process don’t lead these weapons to be as accurate at the M-16 family at distances…but there are always exceptions . Yes, the 7.62x39 has better penetration, but by and large that advantage is outweighed by the poor max range (maxes out at less than 400m vs 500m for 5.56) and accuracy comparison. Even when you add optics to the AK, you still battle the manufacturing limitations.

7.62x54 is predominately a MMG/GPMG or sniper round. Our answer to that is the 7.62x51 as our MMG/GPMG and sniper round. (yes, I am excluding the .338 Lapua and HMG rounds in this comparison). While these are not necessarily found within the TO/E at the Squad level, they are in the TO/E at the Company/Battalion level. Utilizing/employing these weapons is a tactical decision based on the threat in any given situation.

Yes, there are some countries that still have .308/7.62x51 weapons as their primary battle rifle but they are not as prolific as the AK family among our adversaries or potential adversaries. Estonia, Turkey, Brazil to name a couple of nation states that use the 7.62x51 – but are they potential enemies? Yes, terrorist/criminal organizations may have these as well, but in what numbers? I saw NONE of these weapons employed against me or my units in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq.

So again, WHO are these adversaries that are equipped with ‘full power’ weapons? I don’t know everything , but I am confused by what I see as a fairly flawed argument. What developments are underway in our potential adversaries’ gun-works that leads us to believe we will be overpowered in our next engagement? Again, the 5.56 is not a perfect round, but it has never failed me and I have never felt outgunned.

[Trooper]

I am not a ballistics expert but I can see the shortcomings in the 5.56 round. I do consider myself fairly knowable on the nation’s enemies/potential enemies – that’s part of my job. Which of our adversaries, or projected adversaries, are using 'full power' weapons? The preponderance of forces we will fight against/are projected to fight against are equipped with 7.62x39/5.54x39 AK style weapons. The 5.56 is comparable ballistic-wise to these weapons and superior when you talk accuracy beyond 100m. The short sight radius on the AK family, combined with the stamping manufacturing process don’t lead these weapons to be as accurate at the M-16 family at distances…but there are always exceptions . Yes, the 7.62x39 has better penetration, but by and large that advantage is outweighed by the poor max range (maxes out at less than 400m vs 500m for 5.56) and accuracy comparison. Even when you add optics to the AK, you still battle the manufacturing limitations.

7.62x54 is predominately a MMG/GPMG or sniper round. Our answer to that is the 7.62x51 as our MMG/GPMG and sniper round. (yes, I am excluding the .338 Lapua and HMG rounds in this comparison). While these are not necessarily found within the TO/E at the Squad level, they are in the TO/E at the Company/Battalion level. Utilizing/employing these weapons is a tactical decision based on the threat in any given situation.

Yes, there are some countries that still have .308/7.62x51 weapons as their primary battle rifle but they are not as prolific as the AK family among our adversaries or potential adversaries. Estonia, Turkey, Brazil to name a couple of nation states that use the 7.62x51 – but are they potential enemies? Yes, terrorist/criminal organizations may have these as well, but in what numbers? I saw NONE of these weapons employed against me or my units in Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq.

So again, WHO are these adversaries that are equipped with ‘full power’ weapons? I don’t know everything , but I am confused by what I see as a fairly flawed argument. What developments are underway in our potential adversaries’ gun-works that leads us to believe we will be overpowered in our next engagement? Again, the 5.56 is not a perfect round, but it has never failed me and I have never felt outgunned.

The AK family is either 7.62x39 or 5.45x39 of which is neither battle rifle caliber. Now the Afghanistani do like the old Enfield MkIII (.303) which we should make in .308 for the Afghan army
as it would be a better weapon/caliber for their area. Plus they are more familar with the Enfield MkIII and they tend to have to do longer range shots than we would in the US.

[Michael]

Trooper - sorry, my dyslexia kicked in on the AK-74 caliber. You're correct. But that was my point...who uses the battle rifle caliber? The 5.56 and M16 family are on par/more accurate than the opposition’s primary rifle.
Re the .303 Enfield’s…saw a few of those in Afghanistan especially with the older folks in the south. Great rifle, until you see the local’s ideas for cleaning them... we traded them some .30 cal bore brushes for ice and watched them run that brush up and down the bore. Probably lost a lot of accuracy over time with that technique.

I would classify a the MkIII bolt gun more into the sniper rifle category instead of a modern battle/assault rifle. WWII was an example of what happens when you pit infantry armed with bolt action rifles (Japanese and Germans) against infantry armed with a semi-auto (U.S.).

[LRRPF52]

The direction I see this conversation go a lot is based on geography of the Afghan AOR, which is somewhat unique in the world. When the 5.56 NATO was developed, it was done with Europe in mind, and is actually an excellent cartridge for the forests and urban areas on the European Steppe, for maneuverable and flexible units to sustain multiple contacts, engagements, and follow-on missions without constant re-supply of ammunition.

It also tends to go down the path of looking at dismounted infantry warfare in terms of the service rifle or carbine as being the dominant weapons in pursuing solutions to force-on-force engagements, where no enemy we have fought has chosen to meet us on our terms since the 1950's.

You also have to ask: "Does it make sense to adopt a universal caliber that is more ideal for Afghanistan, and make every RTO, Key Leader, Forward Observer, Assistant Gunner, Ammo Bearer, Anti-Armor Weapon Specialist, combat engineer, generator mechanic, driver, cook, supply sergeant, etc. carry that versus 5.56?"

[Trooper]

The direction I see this conversation go a lot is based on geography of the Afghan AOR, which is somewhat unique in the world. When the 5.56 NATO was developed, it was done with Europe in mind, and is actually an excellent cartridge for the forests and urban areas on the European Steppe, for maneuverable and flexible units to sustain multiple contacts, engagements, and follow-on missions without constant re-supply of ammunition.

It also tends to go down the path of looking at dismounted infantry warfare in terms of the service rifle or carbine as being the dominant weapons in pursuing solutions to force-on-force engagements, where no enemy we have fought has chosen to meet us on our terms since the 1950's.

You also have to ask: "Does it make sense to adopt a universal caliber that is more ideal for Afghanistan, and make every RTO, Key Leader, Forward Observer, Assistant Gunner, Ammo Bearer, Anti-Armor Weapon Specialist, combat engineer, generator mechanic, driver, cook, supply sergeant, etc. carry that versus 5.56?"

The Russians learned that the 5.45x39 did not cut it with the Chechnya conflict. The stone buildings of Europe make the .22 caliber rounds less effective. We are doing more urban warfare, not battles on open ground. Even if we did not have the long range shots of Afghanistan, just the battles in the villages of Iraq and most of the other Islamic countries would be forcing us to go to a larger caliber. Thus what the Russians, the Chinese and others are in the process of doing. We need a general purpose cartridge.