"US Army has developed a bullet that penetrates 5.56 mm-" Topic

…resistant body armor.

"Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told senators Thursday that the Army has developed a round that can penetrate 5.56 mm-resistant body armor.

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the Army's budget request, Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, asked Milley how the Army was doing in developing a new rifle to replace the M4 and a more powerful round to replace the 5.56 mm bullet it fires.

"We think we have a solution," Milley said. "We know we have developed a bullet that can penetrate these new plates."…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

7.62mm seems the obvious choice.

How many projects has the US military initiated since the introduction of the M16 to get a "better rifle" ? I lost count myself.

Meanwhile 5.56mm and the AR-15 platform have become the de facto rifle on most gun racks across the US. People going in the US army today probably already know how to handle a rifle because they own or shoot something that operates pretty much the same way.

Introducing a new caliber will be fiercely resisted by those who think it's been good enough so far and as for a new rifle it will look like an AR-15/M16 (internals may vary, but everything like the safety, cocking handle and mag release will remain the same)

As for candidates there are a few options :

1) Keep it 5.56mm and go "Russian" ie lengthen the bullet itself so that it has more mass, better penetration and is more effective when tumbling.

2) The intermediate calibers : Doesn't really matter what you pick, it will have to fit in the same diameter cartridge as the 5.56mm and fit receivers without modification.

3) Go back to 7.62mm. Makes sense to a certain degree unless you know the history of ammo in general, intermediate cartridges, assault rifles and realize that the 7.62mm is a horrible mistake when you mention things such as the 7.92mm Kurz, the Russian 7.62mm, the British EM-2 saga, the FAL saga, the effectiveness of calibers such as the 6.5mm Carcano with a high rifle twist or even the Garand and the .276 Pedersen. Not to mention that most of the ammo described above are designs going back 50-100 years and modern ammo tech has come a long way since.

My guess, the US army will continue to soldier on with the 5.56mm in a carbine length weapon for years to come, projects designed to replace it it will come and go until the real next breakthrough (laser, magnetic, enhanced propellant ?) in personal firearms becomes cheap and practical enough to finally unseat the 5.56mm.

I'm not so sure they will continue with the 5.56mm, since apparently, even they realize it is a marginal round, and that there's been no real development in small arms effectiveness for the USA, in decades.

Time to change that, I think.

….as I realized in the Army, the other side either has weapons very similar to ours, or soon will. Since the insurgents usually do not wear body armor, but US troops do,
how long before the insurgents copy/steal this technology?

Actually good body armor and a modern M-14 are really not that expensive. I was pricing some after the last election and for several grand I could get body armor that would stop most rounds and an M-14 in several calibers.

They tried to use the 6.8mm a few years back. It was all the rage with magazines like guns and ammo praising it up the wazo. Claiming all special operators had stated to use it. And talk about upgrading all m16s and m4s to 6.8mm (or the competing 6.5mm)

Then they just made yet another 5.56 version with similar qualities and the magical 6.5/6.8mm disappeared. I've always wondered just how much money guns and ammo got for all those fluff stories (some rather graphics)

This was before the SCAR17 And HK 417 came on the scene.

There are already short barrel versions of those rifles and since most elite nato units generally don't use full auto anymore. Any recoil problems with the 7.62mm is largely negated.

If US changes, all NATO countries and Australia will have to change too if they want to keep the current standardisation across allies.

Picture this, some US Marines and an Australian rifle section is cut off behind enemy lines slowly being surrounded by an enemy in force. You got a Long Tan scenario, you have to ration out ammo and if you got the Marines firing different bullets to the Aussies it makes things complicated..

Some points to ponder :

Most firefights take place at 250m or less.

On US Military Ranges, the more distance target is 300m. Which as many know who do shooting, a 300m target is very small/tiny. All targets as the shape size of a human. From the knees up or higher based on the range. E.g. at 25m the target is/was just above the shoulders of a human.

Max effective Range of both the M16 & M14 is @ 460m. The US ARMY equates that, IIRC, as at Max Effective Rg you have a 50% probability of hitting the target.

Max Rg is different as many may know. Max is basically when the round run out of energy and grounds out.

Max Rg – M14 = @ 3750m. As it is full 30 cal round/ 7.62 NATO FMJ.

Vs. the M16[now M4], Max Rg is @ 2500m, 5.56mm/223 cal. Assault Rifle[some call it a "carbine"] round. I.e. as many know, not only is the 5.56 smaller in diameter but the round is @ almost but not quite as long/1/3(?) the size of the 7.62 NATO FMJ. [ I have 5.56mm on hand but no 7.62 NATO to give an exact measurement.]

Plus a fully loaded M14 = @ 11.5 lbs vs. the M16 fully loaded, i.e. with full magazine, is @ 7.6 lbs. Total weight the Infantryman carries becomes a factor as well. Plus modern tactics require more rounds for suppressive fire, etc.

I have used/fired both as well as the AK-47. And again as many know. The AK-47 is 7.62x39, an assault rifle round. Not a full .30 cal rounds.

But the bottom line is generally the "weapon is only as good as the trooper behind it" …

When they talked about the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.8mm Remington they only looked at the ballistics.

Officials looked at the price, the tweaked M855A1 was only marginally more expensive than standard 5.56mm and considerably cheaper than either 6.5mm and 6.8mm (not to forget the need to replace all existing barrels and some other tweaks) The M855A1 when first introduced pretty much shut up the usual complaints about the 5.56mm and also made the M4 a bit more credible as an effective weapon.

Actual experience in the field was mixed, the new ammo is better, but there are still issues.

More than a decade later, prices for the other ammo has come down considerably, new variant rounds were introduced which means they are once again making some headway.

But as I have said before there is a long list of projects to replace the M16/5.56mm many of which promised to dramatically change modern warfare, none were ever introduced.

Legion 4

The weights you mention are now completely obsolete because modern rifles have gained extra weight in the shape of various aiming devices, scopes, night vision, lasers, flashlights etc being added to them. So an M16 today is like the M14 in 1965, too much dead weight, that's one of the main reasons why the M16 is all but dead and the M4 is now king. The main concern isn't a better bullet, it's a lighter rifle so you can add more stuff onto it.

Legion, they wouldn't use the m14 but either Scar-h or 417. These weapons are not that much heavier. And like the m4/416 they are adaptable.
You can get a scar-h with 10.5" barrel for CQC or 20" for long range DM role
The only major disadvantage is fewer rounds in the mag, and fewer mags on the vest.

The weights you mention are now completely obsolete because modern rifles have gained extra weight in the shape of various aiming devices, scopes, night vision, lasers, flashlights etc being added to them.

Yes, I've seen all the "bells & whistles" on the M4, etc. But have not fired or carried one. We were still using M16s when I left in '90. I'd hope the newer lighter(?) basic M4 with all those attachments would be more effective than the M16. I seems to me it should. Even including the added weight. So the extra weight would be worthwhile.

So an M16 today is like the M14 in 1965, too much dead weight, that's one of the main reasons why the M16 is all but dead and the M4 is now king. The main concern isn't a better bullet, it's a lighter rifle so you can add more stuff onto it.

Yes, I have not seen too many units carrying M16s in the media, etc.

But I'd imagine unless the 5.56 rd has change and the performance of the M4 has changed too ? As the M4 is basically the CAR-15, yes ? So generally the performance would be similar I'd think ? IIRC, the CAR-15 had a @ 20% lose of range & accuracy. With the shorter barrel, etc.

I need you "young Turks" to keep me updated on some of this stuff. I don't/can't read as much as I used.

But again, I would still think that old saying about "a weapon is only as good as the trooper behind it" generally is still viable.

they wouldn't use the m14 but either Scar-h or 417. These weapons are not that much heavier. And like the m4/416 they are adaptable.
You can get a scar-h with 10.5" barrel for CQC or 20" for long range DM role
The only major disadvantage is fewer rounds in the mag, and fewer mags on the vest.

Generally speaking @ 68 in SE Asia IIRC, the M14s were few and far between. I wouldn't think anyone today would use an M14 if they didn't have to, in almost all situations. Like the M16 … it's old school … like me …

I only used them when I was an ROTC Cadet, '75-'77. By 77 we were using M16s. And by the time I went on active duty '79. Everyone was issued the M16.

In the ROK we had about 4-6 M21s i.e "accurized" M14s with 3x9 Day Scopes. And Night Scopes as well. For our Snipers to use on the DMZ. The scope took advantage of the 7.62 rd's longer range.

But as we see with increase in MOUT in many situations today. The longer heavier rifle would probably not be as "nimble" as say the M4.
However the M14 was one heavy SoB.

However, with all the newer tech, science etc. I'm pretty sure both the basic M16 and M14 would be rarely seen if ever. Just about anywhere on the planet(?).

But again, I'd think a good/true marksmen with e.g. and M1 Garand would probably be more effective than a poorly trained enemy with any of the new better weapons.

But either way, if hit … you'd be KIA or WIA regardless.

As the M4 took over the M16A4 was simply handed over to the DM, but the 5.56 showed it self to be a bad DM caliber. So they brought out the M14 again. But this has now being faced out for the HK417

Well that is interesting … maybe I'm not as old school as I thought …

IIRC the M4A1 has a heavier barrel and a greater rifle twist than the CAR15. The Army seems to have gotten over the three-round burst and the current carbine is a single/full auto weapon now.

Combined with the new ammo, they have brought the specs of the M4 much closer to the rifle length M16. It still has a lower muzzle velocity and the range problems still exist. The M855A1 bullet is now much better at barrier penetration giving it parity with 7.62mm ball ammo (it's still not up to spec with 7.62mm AP though)

The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle is a refurbished M14 designated marksman's rifle that's been included for use within a squad, there have been complaints that this once again means that one or more grunts are no longer ammo compatible.

In recent years the US army tried several new weapon programs. The highly ambitious OICW program was cut down into the XM8 program, with a swanky new rifle by H&K. XM8 was then itself cancelled.

They had a go at the H&K 416 and the FN SCAR. The H&K 416 is an AR-15 platform rifle with a short stroke gas piston system. The SCAR, which looks like the FN FAL and the M16 had a baby is meant to be a highly modular weapon. It comes in two flavours, 5.56mm and 7.62mm and can very easily be changed between the two. It was originally suggested that FN would produce conversion kits for other ammo, but demand was near zero. Both weapons are in service with the SCAR and HK417, both 7.62mm versions being used to replace the M14 EBR (and the older M21 etc). Additionally they have purchased 5.56mm conversion kits for the 7.62mm SCAR.

Meanwhile the Marines figured that the M249 SAW was much too heavy, especially with all the extra bells and whistles, they also remembered that every Marine was a rifleman first and therefore introduced a heavy barrel version of the H&K 416 (M27) that is supposed to be able to lay down highly accurate suppressive fire.

What we see is a back and forth dance. 7.62mm is obsolete, but it's still in widespread use. The 6.xmm ammo was nixed by increased costs and an update program that yet again kept the 5.56m borderline viable, though they still haven't thrown out the idea.

Meanwhile we seem to be cycling through a whole host of features that are added and removed like 3-round burst vs full auto. Do we want proper dedicated SAW's, which are heavier but can spit out a large volume of ammo or do we go back to heavy-barrel light support weapons which are much lighter and handier, but can't generate full sustained fire.

IIRC the M4A1 has a heavier barrel and a greater rifle twist than the CAR15.

That is a good improvement, if true.

The Army seems to have gotten over the three-round burst and the current carbine is a single/full auto weapon now.

We never had any M16s with that feature. Wouldn't think I'd like it ?

Combined with the new ammo, they have brought the specs of the M4 much closer to the rifle length M16. It still has a lower muzzle velocity and the range problems still exist. The M855A1 bullet is now much better at barrier penetration giving it parity with 7.62mm ball ammo (it's still not up to spec with 7.62mm AP though)

Well at least the ammo had improved. Sounds like a good move(?).

The M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle is a refurbished M14 designated marksman's rifle that's been included for use within a squad, there have been complaints that this once again means that one or more grunts are no longer ammo compatible.

How many are issued to a Squad ? Yes, ammo compatibility is always a concern. It does make resupply a little more "challenging", generally.

When I was a Mech Co Cdr '87-'89:

The standard 11 man Squad was 2 Fire Tms of 5 + 1 Sqd Ldr

Fires Tms were armed with :

TM A
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
1 M60 MG
2 M16s

TM B
1 M203 GL
1 M249 SAW
1 M47 MAW
2 M16s

+ the Squad Ldr, usually with an M16

As a Rifle Plt Ldr in the 101, '80-'81. The Squad weapons' breakdown was the same. Save we didn't have the M249 at that time. I see that as a serious "dent" in "available" firepower.

The M14 EBR appears to be assigned at a rate of 2 per platoon on a discretionary base. I heard that some units acquired a few extra if they knew they were getting in a zone where they might need extra range.

The M16A2 with the three-round burst feature was the first major improvement to the M16 platform (The M16A1 was mostly a fix like adding a forward assist) It made use of a new bullet designed in Belgium, the SS109 aka M855 in the US, it was first introduced in the 1980's and most army units got them near the end of the decade or in the early 90's. This new rifle was a marked improvement on the old M16A1, the more modern M16A4 replaced the carry handle with a Picatinny rail and also dropped the three round burst feature of the M16A2.

This new bullet, together with greater standardization across NATO (STANAG mags as standard etc) eased logistics slightly though there were still blips on the radar, the French used 5.56mm ammo in the FAMAS, but this was steel-cased ammo with a slightly different design, so that took a few years to bring in line with the rest of NATO.

2 M14 EBR/Plt sounds like a good addition to the unit. A little more range & firepower. In places like deserts where you can see targets at further distances. It is makes the Infantry units more effective & efficient at is mission/job. That is a plus, IMO.

There was SAW type version of the old M14 too. Full Auto fire option with bipod, IIRC. But it was not widely adopted, if at all. I never saw it when I was on active duty.

I was gone by '90. And had later heard about the M16 w/3 rd burst option. Again, I don't think I'd like it. But never used one so …

I remember the FAMAS and even the UK SA-80 both being 5.56. IIRC they are both still in use. The NATO standardization is could/would be pretty important if an all out war broke out. Even more so than in Iraq/Syria and A'stan. Which are pretty low intensity by definition. Of course if you are on the ground being shot at, you probably don't think that, I'd imagine.

Legion 4: you stated: "On US Military Ranges, the more distance target is 300m." Correction, "On US Army Ranges, the more distance target is 300m." Marines and those Sailors who use rifles (Seabees, EOD, SEALs…) are trained to engage point targets out to 500M. This includes Marines armed with any mark of the M-16 rifle, M-4 carbine or the new M-27.

The caliber of the weapon is one issue; the design of the bullet is another. Changing the caliber does not neccassarily improve armor penetration.

Current US body armor will stop armor piercing variants of the Russian 7.62 x 54mm rounds and even the old 30-06 M-2 armor piercing rounds.

Now that I did not know ! Thanks for the update !