feedback on the 5.56 Nato replacement

02-22-2004, 06:48 PM

what should be taken into consideration if/when the US Military decides to scrap the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round ?...I would like to rebarrel the existing individual rifles keeping the ability to use the current magazines...blow the case out to .30 caliber if it hasn't been done by some wildcatters :assult: pick a projectile that weighs 100 to 125 grains...sounds kind of like an Avtomat Kalashnikova round...as Americans we could field a 7.62x45mm

02-23-2004, 06:11 AM

the argument that is always made about those two calibers is that the troops can't carry anywhere near as much ammunition..I don't think that should be as valid an argument as it used to be because the days of foot patrol seem to be over.. but I wouldn't swear to that in a court of law..the reason the military doesn't issue that ammunition and the rifle that fires it to every soldier is because most combat doesn't occur past 500 yards

a 7.62x45mm could give us a pefect compromise...quite possibly allowing the government to keep it's inventory of M-16 and M-4 weapons :assult:

BattleRifleG3 · 02-23-2004, 10:06 AM

I agree that a 7.62x45mm based on our current 5.56 round might be a good idea. Then we could get cheaper military ammo for our versions, instead of high dollar 300 Whisper/Fireball.

Shaun · 02-23-2004, 10:22 AM

Personally I think if they go back to a 30 cal it goes all the way to the .308 issue M14's

02-23-2004, 04:01 PM

A short time after WWII, the U.S. army established a program to evaluate weapons systems in the modern (atomic) battle field. Based on battle field statistics from WWI, WWII and Korea, showing most kills from small arms occuring at less than 300 yards, it was determined that the military should seriously consider lighter weight, higher capacity weapons.

from http://www.bobtuley.com/stoner.htm
:assult:

02-24-2004, 05:34 AM

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepa...emington_.html

02-24-2004, 05:59 AM

http://www.sskindustries.com/atlantis/6.8.html

10-29-2004, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tenable

Off topic a lil. I heard that the military is thinking about possibly switching their M-16/M4s over to the new 6.8x43mm round in place of .223, if so do you think civilians can get ARs in this round too?

yes I do

02-22-2004, 06:48 PM	#1
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	feedback on the 5.56 Nato replacement what should be taken into consideration if/when the US Military decides to scrap the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO round ?...I would like to rebarrel the existing individual rifles keeping the ability to use the current magazines...blow the case out to .30 caliber if it hasn't been done by some wildcatters :assult: pick a projectile that weighs 100 to 125 grains...sounds kind of like an Avtomat Kalashnikova round...as Americans we could field a 7.62x45mm Last edited by Logansdad; 02-22-2004 at 06:54 PM.

02-23-2004, 10:06 AM	#3
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,401 Images: 13	I agree that a 7.62x45mm based on our current 5.56 round might be a good idea. Then we could get cheaper military ammo for our versions, instead of high dollar 300 Whisper/Fireball. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

02-23-2004, 10:22 AM	#4
Shaun Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 8,592 Images: 1	Personally I think if they go back to a 30 cal it goes all the way to the .308 issue M14's __________________ "Homeland Security is the responsibility of an armed citizen" ME http://webpages.charter.net/s.s.v/

02-23-2004, 06:11 AM	#2
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	the argument that is always made about those two calibers is that the troops can't carry anywhere near as much ammunition..I don't think that should be as valid an argument as it used to be because the days of foot patrol seem to be over.. but I wouldn't swear to that in a court of law..the reason the military doesn't issue that ammunition and the rifle that fires it to every soldier is because most combat doesn't occur past 500 yards a 7.62x45mm could give us a pefect compromise...quite possibly allowing the government to keep it's inventory of M-16 and M-4 weapons :assult:

02-23-2004, 04:01 PM	#5
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	A short time after WWII, the U.S. army established a program to evaluate weapons systems in the modern (atomic) battle field. Based on battle field statistics from WWI, WWII and Korea, showing most kills from small arms occuring at less than 300 yards, it was determined that the military should seriously consider lighter weight, higher capacity weapons. from http://www.bobtuley.com/stoner.htm :assult:

02-24-2004, 05:34 AM	#6
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	http://airbornecombatengineer.typepa...emington_.html

02-24-2004, 05:59 AM	#7
Logansdad Guest Posts: n/a	http://www.sskindustries.com/atlantis/6.8.html