Will the US armed forces ever replace 5...

Will the US armed forces ever replace 5.56 with something else this century or am I good to start stockpiling truckloads of these rounds?

Attached: main-qimg-1c0dfdaa961ac11d0099171760c1f574-c.jpg (400x246, 19K)

Other urls found in this thread:

ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/714088_Suppressed-5-56-SBR-Velocity-Tests--41-Factory-Loads-from-10-5--11-5--12-5-and-14-5-ALL-DONE-.html
animalrightscoalition.com/doc/bowhunting_factsheet.pdf
google.com/amp/s/redoubtreporter.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/haze-beware-pellet-gunshot-thought-to-cause-moose-death/amp/
youtu.be/kiA_W9-pW9Y
youtu.be/8jWEiL7du1U
youtube.com/watch?v=fX4ODh1g4eM
youtube.com/watch?v=PeNR4YDbwR0
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Unless we leave NATO, probably not.

Maybe but it will probably be such a departure from normal ammo that it will take awhile to get into civilian hands in any significant amount.

Maybe we might go to telescoped ammo or something like 6.8/6.5 but I doubt it unless a war breaks out and current NATO spec ammo proves to be awful

Maybe we might go to mini sabot ammo, sort of the same principal in tank shells but to defeat body armor and a major shift in infantry accuracy doctrine

It depends on what proves to be effective against the space bug's armor/body. Personally, I will be welcoming our new, insect overlords but I would imagine 12g slugs would become the ammo of choice for what ragtag military forces remain.

Don't bother with 5.56. If you want long distance performance, get a full caliber like .308. If you want close distance performance, get a shortened round, 7.62x39. This round is a good compromise, you retain most of the benefits of a .30 cal round, but with lighter recoil, weight savings, and cost savings. Your only sacrifice is range. With a .22 cal round, you sacrifice penetration, wounding capacity, and range (doesn't matter if it flies straight past 400y, it won't kill shit at that range). Intermediate rounds are compromises, but .20 cal rounds are not good compromises. They went too far, shaved too much off to save weight, to the point that all they really excel at is being able to carry enough to lay down suppressive fire. If you're fighting in a civilian or guerilla capacity, your tactic sure as shit better not include very much suppressive fire. Ammo will be short in pretty much any scenario I can think of where my life would depend on my rifle. I want to kill what I'm shooting at, even if it's hiding behind what they think is adequate enough cover. An AK will turn a car or cinderblocks into swiss cheese, a .308 won't even know it's there, a 5.56 will make dust and annoying light shrapnel on the other side at best.

So most of the militaries in the world stockpile 5.56 because it's cheap and they use suppressive fire? You mean to tell me that in a SHTF burger situation I would be better off with an AK or an AR10?

Dont listen to that fucking slavboo
5.56 will kill you deader than a hammer if you understand what youre doing with it.

Generally you have 3 ways to wound with 5.56
>fragmentation: bullet breaks apart into fragments, most common on high velocity lightweight bullets (193 up close)
>expansion: bullet expands like a JHP, most common on medium velocity heavy bullets (75gr hornady tap, 75gr gold dot, etc)
>Tumbling: bullet tumbles, most common when velocity is outside expansion or fragmentation thresholds.
Slavboos and people who dont unders

If you plan to stockpile cheapshitty ammo (wolf, 193, etc) you are best with a longer barrel so you can maximize effective fragmentation range
If you are stockpiling gucci 77gr or 75gr expanding ammo you can drop barrel length (and velocity as a result) down to as low as you feel comfortable when it comes to a expansion threshold/distance balance for your specific usecase.

Read:
ar15.com/forums/t_3_16/714088_Suppressed-5-56-SBR-Velocity-Tests--41-Factory-Loads-from-10-5--11-5--12-5-and-14-5-ALL-DONE-.html

and pay close attention to the fragmentation/expansion ranges mentioned. Bracket the peak effectiveness based upon your environment, budget and the performance of the rounds.

military will adopt 6.5 creedmore by 2024
screenshot this

Socom is already adopting 6.5 creed as of the other day

But 5.56 isnt good for long range or penetration is it?

Depends on what you are quantifying as long range or good at penetration. There were regular kills in iraq with m855 (poor round) at 500-600m. In afghanistan there are numerous documented kills with the mk12 and mk262 out to 800-900m

Barrier penetration in SHTF is cars and drywall+wood homes. 5.56 will shit on cars as will anything more than 32acp. If you are trying to shoot someone through a block you will need a hell of a lot more than 7.62x39 or 308. And to be pedantic if you dont want to use suppressive fire due to ammo constraints you shouldnt be taking barrier shots anyway.

>5.56 isnt good for long range
On the off chance you are shooting at long range, 5.56 out of a long barrel or with heavier ammo is fine. It's not the most powerful thing, but "stopping power" is irrelevant at long range. It's not like you're gonna hit somebody and then have them take an accurate shot in return at 700 yards while they're bleeding.

But honestly, in a "SHTF" fantasy I don't know why you would ever be shooting at long range. If you see somebody who you think means you harm way over there, just leave.

Attached: 7.62 NATO vs 5.56 NATO.jpg (1636x1357, 1.37M)

12 gauge is trash against armor this isn't John Wick.

>quoting a fiction writer

>fiction

I'll concede that ARs do well with 20" barrels and boutique ammo. Not everyone is going to be stockpiling the expensive stuff, and everybody seems to have the incorrect length barrel to get proper fragmenting out of the 5.56 round. Even when it's at ideal fragmenting range/circumstances, it still isn't better than a 30 cal. Penetration is the key here, people don't just stand in the open when they're shooting at you.

>it still isn't better than a 30 cal
No its not but its lighter, lower recoil and significantly cheaper.
50 cent 308 is m80 ball
50 cent 5.56 is 75gr bthp
I will tell you off the bat that the 75gr bthp will be more accurate and have far more consistency than federal xm80 or random surplus m80
>Penetration is the key here, people don't just stand in the open when they're shooting at you.
No they dont, thats why its important to have a low recoil platform with a large magazine capacity. Because you are going to miss a lot more than you are going to hit. America is not europe nor the middle east. Most buildings are not concrete, packed mud/earth or even brick. Vehicles get absolutely shit on by 5.56 and the majority of american urban buildings are just piles of glass that offer absolutely 0 barrier to 5.56.

If we were operating in a vacuum of supply with unlimited budget it would be ideal to have 6.5 grendel or 6.5 creedmoor over 308 or 5.56 but the reality is that 5.56 platforms, spare parts and ammunition is far more common in the us. Pic tangentially related.

Another key point is your ROE doctrine as mentioned by . Are you being raided by a band of raiders formed by the snipershide crew who are going to overmatch you at 2000m ? No you are likely shooting people 300m and in, shit probably 100m or even room to room.

A lot of people tend to draw their SHTF feels from places like syria and afghanistan due to them being recent concepts. While there are important lessons to be learned from these conflicts its equally as important to realize that many factors (geography, weapons availability/type, home/building construction and population distribution). I encourage people to walk around their neighborhood and realize that rarely in suburban america are you dealing 1000m shots from your roof against hoards of advancing chicom paratroopers. Even in rural areas people are still forced to close distance on you to get at whatever they wanted.

Attached: SystemComparison.jpg (300x246, 74K)

>recent concepts
Recent conflicts*

The tl;dr is that 5.56 is still very viable for modern small arms engagements. The proliferation of ceramic bodyarmor will likely shift this towards larger projectiles to make more effective use of tungsten penetrators or API compounds.

Based

punisher is ghey, boomer

sticky this post

Attached: pepetuxpin.png (332x332, 126K)

Who cares. stock up on your caliber cuz you probably won't outlive the gun even with a normal, long, non violent life if you dont already shoot barrels out.

NATO and the west have been using 556 for the last 50 years almost. Even if the west switches calibers tomorrow you can bet 556 will still be around and still be used in wars for the next 50 years. Its light, accurate, kills well enough, and there is 10 of millions of guns chambered for it.

...

>America is not europe nor the middle east. Most buildings are not concrete,
That is cope and you know it. There are plenty of walls dude.

5.56 is not recommended to hunt with, it's a shitty overall round. Get a 7.62x39 if you want weight savings over real fuckin NATO, and kill an ARfag later on down the line and take his toy.

I thought they were slowly migrating to 6.8 SPC

Every few years the military wastes a few million dollars on a new infantry rifle program that never ends up amounting to anything. The new one won’t come to any more than the XM8 did, especially after the Marines just got through buying brand-new M27s.

If 6.8 amounts to anything, it’ll be a new DMR cartridge. But for infantry rifles? We’ll still be using 5.56 in a hundred years.

It'll probably stick around until that LSAT/NGSW rifle and munition concept comes through fruition. That said you'll probably see it around for the next century or so.

Attached: 1559002208521.png (2000x2000, 109K)

I mean it'll still work if they decide to switch later on, and a while after that switch they might become rarer, which means you could sell it and buy even more new ammo.

If you want a vision of the future, imagine 5.56 wounding Israel's neighbors - forever.

Attached: The New American Soldier.jpg (1460x2246, 620K)

>There are plenty of walls dude.
Stand anywhere in your house and I will shoot at you with 5.56
Stand anywhere behind your car and I will shoot at you with 5.56
After im done you can repeat the exercise with 7.62x39

I'll probably still be alive because I'm bigger than a varmint.

Boomer detected. Bonded bullets are a thing.

Attached: 223 75 grain TAP on big hog.jpg (337x525, 72K)

Deal, where do you live?

no you will be as dead as the dumb fucking niggers that think the same thing when the police knock on their door

Damn I guess I cant use my 80 ft lbs bow to killed deer, that's like a 12th of the energy needed. Not sure how people use those ti kill elk, moose, and grizzlies you'd think itd just bounce right off.
I'm not sure 308 is really the preferred round when you can use 50bmg. I mean look at the energy difference 14,000 ftlbs vs just 2600. Did you know it takes this made up fudd number to humanely kill a human? 308 just dont got it, while 50bmg keeps it out to 1000 yards.

Ya I always wonder why people complain about how long range hunting isnt humane, when the round still has 3-400 ft lbs of energy, and then they talk next article about how great bow and black powder hunting is. When compared to hunting with a high powered handgun it is hugely inhumane. Most human hunting is just matter, of you and you're weapons ability to make the shot.

Fucking boomers and fudds.

>Studies indicate that for every deer killed by bowhunters at least one or more is hit and not recovered, compared to deer shot by gun where only one out of 14 shots is not recovered.

animalrightscoalition.com/doc/bowhunting_factsheet.pdf

hmm

>miss vitals and it lives
Who'd a thunk it.
Also
>animalrightscoalition
Yeah lemme pull up the Brady statistics for shootings and gun violence, they definitely arent biased in their studies.

They only part that could be inhumane is taking a bad shot, you can take a bad shot at 400 yards, you can take a bad one at 50. You have to know you and your equipments limits. If you connect with the important bits, (heart lungs) the animal will die.

Look pal I'm not saying it won't kill people I'm saying 7.62 rounds are just fucking better. You know this to be true you just want to run a gayR.

Not who you responded to, But unless you are in a fucking dual, where the whole show will be over in one shot. The weight, and size advantages alone of 556 make it vastly superior. And then you have lower recoil for faster follow up shots against new targets.

different poster. you're a stupid faggot communist retard. starve to death

>Will the US armed forces ever replace 5.56

No.

The 5.56 is still effective with the skill level of the "average" combatant. The benefits of 5.56 in a CQB environment outweigh the expected disadvantages of other rifles and similar small rifle calibers.

It's no longer 2012.

socom already did as of the other year

Too expensive, will never happen. No need to with Combined Arms.

>walls
Those walls are typically not bulletproof in the slightest and most places have huge windows for outer walls with support beams being the only solid thing

They use 556 because they have artillery and CAS. Infantry are just used as bait to root out the enemy and shoot thier pop guns until the CAS arrives to do the killing. This is why america will get its shit pushed in hard in a peer on peer conflict.

Are you retarded bows don’t kill by delivering energy, they kill by bleeding out and/or suffocating the animal. Nothing in that is talking about bow hunting

>this is what the military uses

>Unless we leave NATO, probably not.
you're e fuckers that made NATO adopt this hot garbage

NATO is hot garbage.

>So most of the militaries in the world stockpile 5.56 because it's cheap and they use suppressive fire?
yes
>better off with an AK
same shit
>AR10
yeah or a fal/slr/g3/garand or just a decent scoped rifle with a box mag that's actually worth a fuck over 500 meters

>NATO is hot garbage.
>t.life is so bad in Russia I hit the vodka early today

This century? Probably. The issue is that unless there's some major advance in small arms tech there's not enough value in changing over the entire system.

That said there's a few things in the pipeline that could be sufficient. Caseless ammo, polymer cased, telescoped and the like. Combine a few new techniques together and it might be sufficient to make it worthwhile.

I just hope that next time they do it RIGHT, develop the ammo first, getting it configured optimally, THEN develop the gun.

Im american.

"not in common use, therfore banned. sorry guys ;) ;) ;)" - SCOTUS 2040

>this century
It's replacement's replacement will be replaced this century.

Yeah a 400gr arrow through the lungs works waaay different than a bullet throw the lungs, oh wait not really.
T. Bow and rifle hunter

The Army is thinking of developing a new cartridge a 6.8mm to bridge the gap between 5.56x45 NATO and 7.62x51 NATO.

Considering that only has maybe 40-50 ft lbs of energy yes it’s different than what the previous post was saying. Go back to high school physics user

I've heard rumors that after more extensive testing, they started leaning more to 6.5 grendel over 6.8 because of superior performance past 400 meters.

Those are just rumors though.

hello putin

calming

too expensive to replace current arsenal. And it would have to be a NATO round. Good luck getting all those countries to unanimously support a caliber change

Actually have an engineering degree,
Arrows cut their way through and make holes from the broadhead, bullets pretty much do the exact same, but with additional ripping of tissue from the temporary and permanent wound cavity.
If you hit vitals, it will die. Doesnt matter if it's an arrow or a bullet, a 308 or a 223.
google.com/amp/s/redoubtreporter.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/haze-beware-pellet-gunshot-thought-to-cause-moose-death/amp/

I imagine that they won't.

>doesn't matter if it flies straight past 400y, it won't kill shit at that range

By that logic .22lr won't kill up close

bullet wounding mechanisms are pretty dissimilar from broadheads, bullets will crush tissue in a fraction of their own frontal area while pushing the rest aside
that's why rifles > handguns, they operate at velocities where tissue being pushed aside might actually tear it

I’m not saying an arrow through the vitals won’t kill the animal, I’m saying the way it kills the animal is different. Hell, even as other user stated, terminal ballistics varies greatly depending on velocity of the bullet

I do understand there is a difference, but in the end, what kills is the gaping hole in the heart/lungs. Sometimes the hole isn't from bullet contact.
The main thing I was trying to get at is saying, 223 will kill just fine if you hit the heart/lungs, and that the 1000ftlbs to kill a deer is very arbitrary, and not accurate.

This small whitetail made an uneventful and easy recovery because it was only hit with ~550ft lbs of energy, oh no wait it's a 2000lb bison killed by a pellet gun. 510gr@700fps. Shot at ~50 yards.

Attached: stephme.jpg (600x450, 159K)

you dumb faggot, is the deer holding an AK or RPG or remote for an IED 20 yards away from your position? no? oh thats why nobody cares if a deer dies 2 hours later from bleeding out after you shot it like a cuck larper with your primitive compound bow with 200 gears and wheels to make a 1 lb draw weight for your onions back.


soldiers need immediate stopping power for combat they dont have the luxury of waiting around for a target to bleed out because the target is usually holding something that can kill the soldier

Wow why not use a 50cal then fampai? Why is the military so dumb they dont give everyone 20mm cannons when 30mm canons exist. Why even settle for lgbs when you can glass the place?

>Wow why not use a 50cal then fampai
thats exactly what they do. they go to the big stuff. keeping the big guns firing is the #1 priority in engagements
. the cuck rounds you carry around are for personal defense. modern warfare is literally walking around, finding the enemy. holding him there with big guns while you call in bombs and BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAp 30s from the air


youtu.be/kiA_W9-pW9Y

Attached: iraqsaycheese.jpg (400x300, 53K)

youtu.be/8jWEiL7du1U

No, that's modern American warfare, which just costs astronomical amounts of money while failing to achieve any large-scale victories. The US fear of actual on the ground fighting is why the only thing we're good at anymore is breaking infrastructure.

>when you can glass the place?

false sense of morality and virtue signaling leftist politicians prevent this. otherwise i think most of the military would be 100% on board with glassing the middle east shitholes

>on the ground fighting
thats dangerous and leads to casualties. why would we do that when we can safely bomb shitskins from 30,000 feet? anyway once DARPA finishes their work in a couple years, skynet goes online we wont have to use human soldiers anymore and we can go back to ground-based, seek and destroy, house-to-house tactics

Attached: download (15).jpg (275x183, 9K)

Is this troll? Has anyone here seen what M855a1 does to flesh?

youtube.com/watch?v=fX4ODh1g4eM

youtube.com/watch?v=PeNR4YDbwR0

anything thats not a 45ACP is literally an airsoft bb and will bounce off any insurgent wearing a tshirt

Neither is my dick or is it