05-20-2011, 04:08 PM
Quote:As a result of my experience in debating these issues with MoD in the UK, I think that the problem which any replacements for just the 5.56mm, or just the 7.62mm, will face is this: yes, you can produce ammo which has advantages over the existing calibres - but the advantages are not so great that they justify the huge disruption and cost of the change.
In my opinion, this is where the single-calibre solution can deliver a more compelling argument in its favour - provided that a satisfactory performance can be achieved. By replacing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm with one general-purpose round, you achieve not just one improvement but "three for the cost of one": lighter weight and recoil than 7.62mm, better range and effectiveness than 5.56mm, plus the various cost and flexibility advantages of having only one round and weapons family rather than two to procure, support, train and fight with.
The biggest obstacles to a one-caliber system are the varying performance requirements for a combined arms team. What I want a bullet to do in the house, forest, and city streets from my carbine with riflemen is almost opposite of what I want it to do from my LMG's at 200-900m. The weight penalties to favor an LMG performance envelope prohibit the close-in fight envelope from a practical standpoint. I think of assault rifles/carbines as over-powered submachineguns with the capability to reach out to 300-450m depending on the cartridge, which is really an awesome achievement in the history of warfare. For the majority of practical engagements that a rifleman will use his weapon in, it's hard to find anything better than 5.56 NATO.
I would not pay too much attention to articles that start out with the premise, "Everyone knows the 5.56 is an anemic man-stopper." or, "Soldiers have been complaining since Vietnam about the ineffectiveness of 5.56..." Soldiers have been complaining about everything since the beginning of time, and professional career soldiers in special operations units around the world who have a lot of leeway in which weapons they can use seem to mysteriously choose the M4A1 or Diemaco equivalent, including your SAS & SBS, Aussie SAS, Danish, Norwegian, Israeli Light Infantry & CT units, let alone SOCOM and JSOC. What is it that these guys know-many of whom come from Light Infantry units with real world tours before they go through the selection and training process for those types of units? My position on 5.56 NATO is that it ain't broke, it's plentifully available, and it often blows living tissue apart where it hits within 100m.
Machineguns need to be able to reach out from that point onwards, and Squad/Platoon-level LMG's need to support the fight in urban areas as well. This requires an entirely different animal with regards to trajectory, penetration, feeding systems, etc. To me, it is counter-productive to try to get these two realms to jive together, although the Grendel does seem to be the best compromise I can think of, but I feel sacrifices too much edge off of each to be worth pursuing in that regard, especially since the assault rifle realm is not broken, and the machinegun realm has lots of room to improve in to make a leaner, more lethal fighting force.
While we recognize that it will likely take something revolutionary to replace anything within the current system, replacements are going to inevitably happen at some time, which is why it's important to keep a healthy debate, testing atmosphere, and brain-storming session alive. I thank you all for that, by the way.
LRRPF52