US uses bullets ill-suited for new ways of war

Wow there's so much you guys dont know about the issue I dont know where to start????

Lets go back to the 1950's By now the 7.62 NATO was standard issue but... At the time of selection, there had been criticism that the 7.62 mm was too powerful for modern service rifles, causing excessive recoil, and that the weight of the ammunition did not allow for enough rate of fire in modern combat. So the search was on for a cartridge that was easier on inexperienced shooters... and in 58 they came up the 5.56...

So it was never about being better than then .308 it was always about being easier to shoot...and carry more ammo...

Okay onwards and upwards... the US... Never signed the Hague that says a .308 is inhuman and banned as a Main battle rifle cartridge... the reason we dont use it goes back to why it was developed... recoil sensitivity...

while the M14 is long gone... we do have the Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle... now there is a sweet machine...

now back in 2007 the Army did try to order FN SCAR in both 16 and 17 flavors... the Army wanted the 5.56 while the Marines ordered the Heckler-Koch HK417...in 7.62 NATO... both orders were cancelled by congress...

right now the Army is conducting tests for both a new carbine and a M4 Replacement... it'll be some time before any of us hear what the outcome will be...

BTW they did bring back the Heckler-Koch XM-29 SABR... for more field testing... but who's to say where that will go

Okay lastly to those who dont know what real combat is like... trust me your better off not knowing... it's not like you see in the movies... if in a real SHTF... you let yourself be drawn into a real firefight... you've already lost... if you go looking for a firefight... your as good as dead...

 

When did that happen???

As there are two Hague Treaties (1899 and 1907) banning the 308 would have been difficult.

 

You are correct Tikka. Hague was more about using FMJ vs. open tips. Had nothing to do with caliber. The caliber was changed because of the weight issues among others. It also bridged the divide between the M1 Carbine and the Battle Rifles of the time... a marked improvement IMHO. The facts about ammo expenditures and realistic engagements can't be ignored either. Some say the studies are incorrect, but the majority of that comes from the inability of the organization to accept change and move on. Hence the reason why Marines are trudging 20" barrels inside buildings up until ~2004-05.

I'm not knocking the 7.62. I have my fair share. Different strokes for different folks. The MBR has it's uses. I just don't think the 7.62 is the best all around round for everything/everybody. I think it should be regionally dependent as well. Let's face it, a dude trudging the FL Bayous doesn't need a 800M capable weapon. Neither do most Eastern folks. I put my 20" AR10 in the back of the safe when I came home... no shots necessitate the heavy weight and effective range of the beast as they did in AZ. My SCAR-17 rides close to the front, but there are a couple AR15s ahead in line

 

Three tours to combat since 9-11. M-4 last trip. Lots of shooting at haji, only got a few. Scary, you mostly miss. (well, I did) That said... I like the AR platform. carried it for 28 years. Being used to it tends to make it more acceptable. When we left the wire i carried 12 30 rounders on my vest and started with my C-Mag in. I love the idea of having a larger round that will bring down a bad guy quick, but it is just an idea.. because I never experienced it... so I'm happy with the M-16/M-4. I did have a "one shot one kill" with the M855 round, but as a rule I shot each target with multiple rounds. Hey, a little work on that stupid cam, and it goes from "Burst" to "Auto". Just like the old days. Trigger control gets you the 3 round burst.

Soft points would have been way better, but the dang 5.56 is just so easy to shoot, who could hate it?

 

"Wow there's so much you guys dont know about the issue I dont know where to start????"


That became apparent immediately.

 

I miss the old days when all they asked was that you shoot and salute. Every one was using full powered rounds and the death toll was in the hundreds every day.
Wait those are the days we are trying to avoid again.

 

changing bullets is cheap, but changing rifles and calibers is not. You can just forget about the military's adoption of 6.8spc or grendel or 308 as a GI rifle rd. It's never going to happen. Our tropps miss with 1000's of rds per enemy struck by a rifle bullet, most hits are random accidents or richochets, and only 1 hit in 4 is lethal. The rifle bullet has so little import that the military rightly just disregards it as a place to spend time and money in order to increase our effectiveness.

 

Simple 'logistical inertia' has a lot to do with it. When the military system is buying bullets by the millions, it's hard to change the supply system at a whim. So the troopers carry on with something less than ideal. We fought the Spanish-American war undergunned and equipped with a lesser rifle than our enemies - but we still won.

 

As the Rolling Stones said "You can't always get what you want."

If they are the ones attacking us or our interests for no reason then they deserve to die.

List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As an example of our interests, the sharks would eat well on pirates.

 

so who needs to win it with boots on the ground, anyway? are the Balkans still a problem like they were in the 90's? The japs quit being a problem after TWO nukes, how much "boot on the ground" would have been necessary if we'd used 20-30 nukes on Japan, spread over the next 1-2 years, as we could have built them, eh? You just ASSUME that we mean "limited" war. I mean nothing of the kind.