New Military Caliber as 5.56×45 Sunsets


New Military Caliber as 5.56x45 Sunsets
New Military Caliber as 5.56×45 Sunsets

Ft Collins, CO –-( Caliber Controversy!

After decades of piously assuring us the 5.56×45 round was “adequate” for military purposes, despite mounting complaints (unsatisfactory range and penetration), dating back to Vietnam, the Pentagon has apparently finally changed its mind.

In spite of a dreary series of failed “wonder bullets” that have, every few years, come forth to “upgrade” the 5.56 round, faith that the 5.56 can ever be “adequate” is fading!

Just as the Marines are buying the HK 416 (M27), a gas-piston AR (in 5.56×45 caliber), to replace aging M4s, Congress and the Army are putting the breaks on that project.

After fifty years of pointless hope that the 5.56×45 round might really be “adequate,” a new, bigger military caliber may now be about to make its debut!

When the AR (in 5.56×45 caliber) first reared its head, and garnered the attention of then Secretary of Defense McNamara, it was slated to gradually replace only the M1 Carbine, never the M1 Garand, later the short-lived M14.

The M1 Carbine, manufactured by the millions during WWII, was originally intended only for rear-area defense and police actions. It was never intended to be a front-line, battle rifle, although it eventually found its way into every corner of the campaign during WWII and Korea.

When I was in Vietnam in 1968, M1 Carbines were still around in large numbers. I saw (and used) plenty of them.

Yet, the AR (in 5.56×45 caliber) somehow eventually became the main, battle rifle of all US Forces, and remains in that status to this day. This, despite continuous misgivings about its adequacy that have been desperately voiced since Vietnam.

Up until now, the Pentagon as assured us that these qualms about adequacy were all in our imaginations!

That is apparently about to change.

Of course, the Pentagon will never admit they’ve been wrong all this time. They’ll simply say “It’s time to move on.”

It was “time to move on” fifty years ago!

Stay tuned!


Defense Training International, Inc

About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.

It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit:

  • 168 thoughts on “New Military Caliber as 5.56×45 Sunsets

    1. You bitch and moan about the guy making 1 literary mistake and here I’m residing in a remote location having to use speech to text technology on a cellphone to communicate and and regardless how it looks on this end, by the time I hit the send button there is absolutely NO guarantee how it will come out on the other end or whether it will please everybody? For people so sensitive to perfection, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut, “Go f’ck yourself!”

    2. I do not know if anyone has commented from this perspective yet. If so then disregard but there were some reasons for the 5.56/7.62 adoption of the time.
      1. Testing of the day: given the adoption process of the day, there may/may not have been adequate ballistics testing. Also, politics might have gotten in the way. Without getting into the weeds on the “Why” ill continue with a more current issue.
      2. Lessons learned: Whichever caliber was adopted, the U.S. military has a rule that it uses to guide the thought process on all other small arms testing. Its a rule influenced, ironically, by the defeat of Japan during WW2. After WW2 ended, many studies were conducted. One of these studies asked a fairly straightforward question of “Why did Japan lose?”. The relevant part for purposes of this thread is mainly that Japan had a production problem. During the war, Japanese small arms manufacturers were prolific. The end result being that many different kinds of firearms were produced and each had a unique caliber. The end result on the fighting end was a mass of confusion for the logistical end of the spear: troops fighting would receive ammo that was not correct for the weapons they had. So what does this have to do with the U.S. military adopting a better caliber today? Simply put: training and supply.

      I spoke to a LtGen Lamoyne while i was an undergrad in college and he told me that replacing any caliber was problematic due to having to replace all equipment, update the supply chains, produce manuals for armorers, train armorers, etc. Initially, the cost of such an endeavor was daunting. So, to answer the question in a more direct way: yes. There are more accurate/better calibers than 5.55/7.62 but the military balances pricing over innovation because it has other ancillary factors to consider. Quite simply, the military doesnt have the infrastructure to produce those calibers in large enough quantities.

      1. The DOD doesn’t have any infrastructure to mfg. small arms and ammunition post Vietnam. These are all made by publically traded or private corporations.

    3. 1. I expect that DoD will, once again, change nothing about the 5.56mm ammo we currently use – except perhaps to go back from the copper M855A1 round to the (now) venerable M855, because it’s cheaper and more accurate.
      2. That having been said, perhaps into the mix of suggested different calibers (I do like the Grendel for a 5.56mm replacement) we can add a change in bullets. Try a heavier match-grade bullet in 5.56mm: No need to change the firearms (though it WOULD perform better out of a 16 inch as opposed to a 14.5 inch barrel), and would be more useful at all ranges out to 500-600 meters than the 62 grain bullets, while still usable at CQB distances.
      I hand-load mine; was using the 69 grain Match King with Varget or H335 powder – but the recommended loads didn’t get muzzle v. greater than about 2600 fps. I tried similar Noslers, and their accuracy recommendation calls for A2230 powder (23.5 grains; max load) which moves that heavier bullet at almost 3k fps. For accuracy, I’ve achieved 1 MOA at 300 yards out of a 20 inch, 1:9 twist Bushmaster barrel. This was a three-inch group from a bench at 300 – the accuracy we needed in Afghanistan, and couldn’t get with issue ammo. My wife’s M&P-15 with 16 inch barrel (1:8 twist) gets almost the same: I was looking for both greater accuracy and greater “smack” and achieved both – though nothing’s perfect. (I’d like to try Grendel, but cost is currently prohibitive, especially to build ammo stocks.)

      Just to add to the conversation.
      And, Semper Fi TV! (USMC 1970-74) (Near Castle Rock, WA) (Qualified w/M14 @ MCRD San Diego in 1970; carried M16A1, -A2, then most recently M4 ever after)

      Something else to be considered.

      1. @Mike Settles

        The heavy bullet theory for the 5.56 has been looked into before, particularly the 75 and 77gr loads. Results have been so-so.

        While I love the 300 blackout, its designed purpose was to replace submachine guns, increase modularity, reduce training, and improve logistics. It was not meant for a front line battle rifle, it is purpose driven. Meanwhile, the 6.8SPC is an ideal cartridge and a perfect performance envelope, but to effectively use it would require a new rifle built around the chambering itself. Not something a country twenty trillion dollars in debt can realistically look at.

        I think, my opinion being what it is, that the best option if the Military seeks to keep its current weapon roster while improving performance then the best option for a chamber upgrade would be the .277 Wolverine. Advances with the 6.8 means new bullets are being made in that caliber that could be furthered. The cartridge uses modified 5.56 brass, meaning switching production would not require new machining for ammunition. It mates perfectly with the modular weapons platforms like the M16/M4 and The 249SAW through no more than a simple barrel change. Its performance envelope comes to within 90% of the 6.8, and has more range than the 300AAC BLK. And, the round has a bit of historical value as it hearkens back to when the Military was looking at the .276 Pederson.

        Just my two cents.

    4. There are thousands of aluminum alloys. Pure aluminum is highly resistant because the top layer of molecules oxidize and protect the metal from further corrosion. Some alloys do corrode more because some of the metals in the alloy. Steel cases rust and must be protected by plating, painting or waxing.
      I think that BLASER Aluminum cases have a sound track record. Brass is expensive and brass corrodes too. Brass is also heavy. Brass and copper were the best for drawing cartridge cases from 1860 to 1940. Then steel was used because brass and copper [ copper being te primary metal] was a valuable war commodity for wire and electronics.

    5. I know that the guns and ammo are heavy, but I’ll stay with my .30-06 and .308s.
      I know that when you hit something with either one of those rounds, it stays down especially at the distances we have to play with today.
      Those rounds will go through most doors and walls.
      For close in work, from experience, I prefer a 12 gauge!
      End of story!

    6. I’m guessing that the choice will come down to cost, The green eyeshades types will militate for anything that costs less. That’s the death knell for 7.62 NATO or 6.5 Creedmore as neither round is compatible with the M4 sized lower receiver. I’m partial to .30 caliber, so, if it’s suitably powerful or can be made so, I lean toward .300 Blackout. Besides requiring only a barrel change, the round is compatible with the billions of magazines already owned by the armed forces. And since it uses an enlarged .223 case, there’s no loss of magazine capacity.

      1. The 300 Blackout is 7.62×35 and the .221 Fireball is the parent case. Powder charges are limited by case volume. The .223/5.56×45 will hold about 40% MORE powder by volume.
        The 300 BLK is a short range cartridge pushed to its limits. It is in the power range of a 357 handgun.
        A 300 BLK SBR would be ideal for arming school teachers, Soldiers might need to shoot people 1/2 mile away and the 300 BLK just isn’t suitable.
        The 6.8 SPC is a Winchester 270 which is a necked down 30/06 or 7.62×63 or 6.8×63.
        A 7.62×51 NATO is a 30/06 in a 1/2 inch shorter case.
        The ideal military system would be light weight with the power of the 7.62×51. Using an aluminum case would save a lot of weight.
        Such a system would save money since aluminum is cheaper than brass and the stocks of 7.62 NATO ammunition could still be used.
        300 BLK is ideal for police, school teachers, home defense.

    7. First off, yes, it is time for a different round than what DOD is currently using. But everyone must understand what the overall intent was for using the 5.56 x 45 round. Tom Votaw is correct on everything he said, but there is one more reason the military went to 5.56; lethality. They were not trying to kill the enemy, only wound them. The premise was this: if you kill 10 fighters you take 11 out of the fight; the 10 dead and the one who stays behind to evac the bodies. If you wound 10 fighters (presumably enough to keep them from continuing to fight) you just took 20+ people out of the fight; one person for every wounded to carry them out and how ever many it takes to carry the gear from those 20 people.

      Also, the military was still stuck in the Cold War symmetrical warfare mindset when deciding to adopt that round (and really didn’t finally move on and update tactics and strategies until 2005).

      And my background was 20 years in the Navy, retired in 2013 and did four deployments after 9/11, all with Naval Special Warfare. Two in Iraq and two in the South Philippines.

      1. You are assuming that the enemy forces are inclined to evacuate the dead and wounded. In some cases, they may just leave them on the field when they withdraw or, if wounded, kill them.
        They may even think that because we are the “good guys”, we’ll pick up their wounded and dead, then “booby-trap” them.
        Not all enemy nations/forces behave according to the Geneva Convention.

    8. Just switch uppers,,go to AR-10,,,No excessing training,,,Plenty of ammo to be found,,, Don’t have to re-train everybody..And plenty of power

      1. You can not just add an AR10 upper to a M4 lower. No offense but educate yourself before for giving advice or opinions on a subject.

      1. Yes, I think the military should adapt to this round. Being prior military myself and owning several ar’s chambered in 6.5. The Grendel shoots out flat to 3-4 hundred yards and is a good round between the 5.56 and 308. Penatration is better and the ability to carry extra ammo is key. I think this is the best AR round to date.

    9. I think they should consider the 300 Blackout. Only have to change the barrel. Cheaper and a better penatrating round into the human body.

    10. The M14 has a switch at the rear on the receiver to select full auto or semi. The switch was removed by most commanders. The M14 has a high cyclic rate, a stock that does little to moderate recoil and muzzle rise. The M14 has a flashhider and needs a muzzle brake.
      An AR geometry is better for handling recoil. By using a heavy buffer the cyclic rate is slower and a burst or 3 shot trigger prevents the rifle firing the whole magazine in one 3 second, 20 round waste.

    11. This is an impressive amount of derp here. Thank you restoring my faith that there is still gun store, mall commando talk on the internet. And here I thought everyone believed in science. Personally, they should replace 5.56mm with the .45 ACP. in fact, everyone should be issued old stocks of 1911s and 45 ball ammo instead of rifles. We know how much more lethal it is over everything.

    12. If our military brass didn’t morph into politicians as soon as they set foot in the Pentagon, (and actually do have a good reason for the caliber requirement), they would simply procure a synthetic stocked, 19″ barreled version of the M14 chambered in either .260 Remimgton or 7mm-08 for frontline troops, and solicit bids for a SAW in the same chambering. Either can launch a 139 to 145 grain bullet at better than 2,600 FPS with less recoil than the 7.62 NATO. Issue P90’s to support personnel, and call it a day. Of course, weapons procurement has been an extremely political process since before WWII, so whatever our soldiers do eventually end up with, you can rest assured it won’t be chosen based on their needs.

    13. The DOD might choose the 6.8 SPC with all the .30 caliber brass available but the 6.5 Grendel is the better choice because it has a greater range in bullet sizes including those with better BCs than either the 6.8 SPC or the 300BLK.
      Note: Speed is not just about barrel length, its also very much about powder choice (fast v. slow burning) and bullet weight.

    14. Back in the 1930s the Garand was going to be adopted in caliber .276, General Marshall overruled the board and the Garand was adopted in .30/06 with a new load. The M1 Rifle came with the M1 ammunition with a 172 gr FMJBT. The M1 ammunition was soon replaced because National Guard rifle ranges would not contain the 172 grain bullet.
      The M2 Ball with a 150 grain FMJ Flatbase was adopted and was the standard round through WWII and Korea.
      Improvements in chemistry replaced the 1930s smokeless powder with Improved Military Rifle powders such as 4064 and 4895.
      To stay within the allowable pressure curve of the M1 Rifle the powder load was reduced, leaving about 1/2 inch of empty space in the M2 Ball ammo.
      After the Korean War the work on the M1 replacement included duplicating the ballistics of the M2 Ball in a shorter case. The 7.62×51 NATO aka .308 Winchester is just that. The T48 rifle [if I remember experimental number] was adopted as the M14. The M14 gas system does not have the weakness of the 2 foot long operating rod that is easily bent with powders slower than 4895 that make port pressures too high for the M1 to handle.
      The 6.8 SPC is a nominal 270 caliber. Making armor piercing bullets is easier with a larger diameter projectile. A tungsten steel core with a a soft lead layer under the jacket allows a heavy enough have enough mass to defeat an inch of steel armor.
      Since the Vietnam War aluminum alloys and deep drawing machines allow making cartridge cases from aluminum instead of brass saving 70% of the weight of the case increasing round count on a combat load. A more effective terminal performance might make up the difference in count between 5.56×45 and an aluminum cased 7.62×51 or even a 6.8×51 gaining 2700 – 3000 fps with a heavy enough bullet to be effective on cars and trucks, enemy wearing body armor, and ranges out to 1,000 + yards.

      1. Wouldn’t the aluminum case of a 7.62×51 for Military purposes corrode quickly given all the various climate changes and storage facilities with variable temps in them , much like the cheap Bear ammo does?

    15. If it’s any bigger cartridge it will be in a totally different weapon system, that will take them a decade and millions of our dollars to accomplish. I like the Grendel a lot and the 6.8 is no slouch but the Grendel has a ballistic advantage with better bullet design. A midsize piston AR would really thrill me!

    16. Here’s the word on what the new round may be:
      “Ideally, the Army’s rifle should fire a round between 6.5mm and 6.8mm, which is highly accurate because it retains supersonic velocity longer than existing military calibers, and it also generates less recoil so fully automatic fire is more stable, he said.”

      Here’s the word on the SAW upgrade:
      “The service plans on fielding a Next Generation Squad Automatic Rifle (NGSAR) — the first version in the Army’s Next-Generation Weapons System that chambers a round between 6.5mm and 6.8mm — as a potential replacement for its 80,000 M249 SAWs starting in fiscal 2022 rather than the original target date of fiscal 2025, Col. Geoffrey A. Norman, force development division chief at Army HQ, told Task & Purpose, with two per “nine-man infantry squad.

      1. The 6.5mm Creedmoor will replace the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO
        It will 1st be deployed by special forces before going into general use.

    17. The .224 Valkyrie.
      A 6.8 SPC necked down to 5.56mm, throwing a 90 grain bullet still going ~ 1419 fps at 100 yards !

    18. I’m far from an expert but something 107 – 111 grain fast moving with 18 inch barrel would be awesome

      1. @Bill, Well, it is government work, so the results will be subpar. What exactly we don’t know yet because not all of the after service offers of executive employment are not in yet. Then there is the picking of the low bidding vendor to make and supply the thing. Oh, yes, there is lots of corrupt money to still be made.

    19. Grendel has bolt problems. Type 1 or type 2 bolts. Great round though.

      No calls for the return of 45-70?……….it hasn’t gone away for a reason……..

    20. The M4 of today and the M16 of Viet Nam, where I spent my early adulthood, are different in their lethality not because of the ammo. No the M4 has a very short barrel and making it as short as it is caused a serious loss of velocity. .That loss of velocity is todays failure problem. If one had a chance to e fortunate to seethe m16 and the XM177 in combat they would see the validity of this. While the XM177 was easier to pack around , it lacked the lethality of the M16 because it gave up too much velocity If you want the M4 to be a killer, lengthen the barrel, It is that simple…All you had to do is shot the enemy, not the bushes.

      1. I like the .270. I use one for deer hunting and it has some kind of knock down power. I shot a 240 pound buck and he went down like he had been pole-axed. I shot one that was within spitting distance of my stand a couple of years ago and he never knew what hit him. He was also over 200 pounds. It is a very flat shooting round that has lots of speed.

    21. :…and the Army are putting the breaks on that project.”
      You mean “brakes”, as in to slow down or stop, not “breaks”

    22. With all the girls and wimps in the military now. They will be looking at weight over firepower. I can’t carry that it’s to heavy. Oh, it hurts when I shoot it. It kicks to much. There are still a lot of good people in the military. But Clinton and Obamy pushed in queers and girls. So light with no recoil will rule the day.

    23. For starters, and disclaimer, I won’t argue with or repeat the many comments already here, youse have your beliefs, some I can hang with. (As an aside, being a now-retired former fed investigator, I wince when I see some of the horrid spelling and even minimal attempts at decent sentence structure. Even the author has to figure the difference between “break” and “brake”. P-lease, show the pinheads who lurk, and sometimes plant a turd here, that we are reasonably literate. Common sense and intelligence are already quite present here, which I appreciate, because we must outsmart the opposition, beat the faux intellectuals and arrogant but wrong “elites” at their own games. We already know we can beat them on the field, should it come to that. But let’s look a bit sharp doing it here in the meantime, OK?)

      Now, to gunfighting calibers. I have the grand luck to have a scar on my left inner arm from an M1 carbine round, courtesy of a Viet Cong shooter (the VC took weapons off dead ARVN’s back in 1966, before they all got AK’s). Anyhow, my corpsman dug the round out, powdered and wrapped the wound, and I went right back into the fray. Life as a Marine grunt. IF that had been an AK or even SKS round, it’d been medevac time, and maybe even a bad arm for life.

      We coveted our M14’s, and when the word came down about the Mattel toys, we fought tooth and nail to keep that 7.62, ammo weight and count be damned. Then, it was “issue the M16’s to the guys in the rear, officers, etc., but leave the shooters, the grunts, alone, because we are killing what we aim at with what we got”. Well, I got hit a few months later, and a ticket out on a C-130 medevac, so lost touch with my crew for a while, but read about the 5.56 round deflecting in jungle fighting, malfunctions of the rifle, and the death toll from being trapped with a locked-up M-16. Years later, at our company’s reunion, we talked over beers about this, and unanimously right up to and including our skipper, the memories of finally having to give up our M-14’s were still there.

      The rationale for this 5.56 caliber was about carry capacity, weight, and mobility. On paper, like always, it read good enough for the JCS to bite. For us, even the little guys (itty-bit’s) it didn’t, it sucked. But now, remember what our current military looks like: The females in particular. The original rationales for lighter carry, now including issues like handling recoil, once again become part of the formula. This, based upon some feedback from recently discharged Marines I’ve talked to. Field maneuvers with mixed gender units reveal some issues with handling weight, like full rucks, ammo, water, etc. Fortunately, there were no females in the grunt units in their deployments, but you know that is coming – trial by fire, not by FX.

      From this point on, I respectfully decline to comment too far, but if the pussification of our military that began under Obama has to include the actual trigger-pullers, all bets are off. Now, IF the powers (the Joint Chiefs) were to understand the need for a tiered infantry weapons system, we could hope to see something like what has worked so well in past eras. Take WWII: A Marine rifle squad had M1 Garands, at least one BAR, officers and senior NCO’s had a choice, Garand or carbine. Usually, there was a .30 cal machine gun nearby. That carried through Korea, until the early 1960’s, when the M-14 replaced the Garand (7.62 vs. 30.06), the M-60 machine gun replaced the BAR and the .30 cal. three man gun. We went into Vietnam that way, with other weaponry as well, like the M-79 grenade gun, and still carrying the old 3.5 rocket tube (my penance).

      From there, you guys know the rest of the story, up to present day. My premise for a Marine infantry squad, fighting in 21st Century locales, looks something like this:
      The riflemen, the core of a squad, should have a select-fire, medium range rifle that lands somewhere near the ballistics of these 6.5 to 7.62 calibers you guys refer to. IF the squad member cannot qualify, cannot maneuver, and cannot carry his/her complement of gear, including ammo, then someone better exercise some tough love, and spare the rest of the squad the risk, and replace that member. I don’t give a good loud fart if it’s a gender issue; it’s about the squad’s mission, and survival, first. Obama’s ghost be damned. Our SecDef Mattis needs to remember his roots, and step up on this. Warfighters must not be hamstrung by PC foolishness.

      There still needs to be a designated marksman, perhaps only needing good optics on the new issue rifle, because a DM needs to be able to bridge the role of a line grunt with a sharpshooter, out perhaps to 500 meters. Beyond that, it’s a job for the 0317’s, snipers. Then, finally, a Marine squad still needs a sustained fire auto gun, what was once called a Squad Auto Weapon (SAW). A unit needs that for fire and maneuver stuff, especially in urban turf. I don’t even know what those options are anymore, been out too long now. I don’t know dick about the Army’s needs, but it’s got to be similar.

      The newer gunfighter veterans, if any on here, know what is needed, because they walked the walk. Get hooked up with your congressmen and make some suggestions, (unless like me in deep blue Oregon, your reps are now a bunch of left-wing punks only interested in illegal immigrants and the Deep State). Then, just armor up with what you prefer, and watch what the military ends up doing. Like me. Yep, 5.56 is in my safe, just not the 55gr. fmj version (except for range day ammo). And, an old Marine grunt will never be without that 7.62, both in x51, and x39. After all, the commie round still kills (it took out a lot of my company, at least half of our 37 KIA), and the AK will rattle out rounds in a swamp or sand pile if need be. A better truck gun doesn’t exist, and that ammo is still cheap and plentiful. YMMV. Sorry for the tome.

      1. first sir, thank you for your service and insight on battlefield rounds. Everything you said is dead on, with how many rounds someone can carry is more important to the big guys in the offices not what that round can do. historically the generals in Washington have been too worried about the pennies it cost per round than how much a soldier’s life cost. I really enjoyed your comments and thank you again

      2. Speaking of “I wince when I see some of the horrid spelling and even minimal attempts at decent sentence structure.”
        Uh … ‘youse’?

        1. Donald, Tim just delivered an informative Red, White and Blue discussion with topic on several levels which included a request for intelligent exchange. He delivered on that and you counter his argument with one word that hangs you up, and on the third line no less. I’m wincing at your quote and end quote placement. Had you reached line 11, youse would have seen an offering for reasonable literacy by the author. Dad burn It Virginia, git meez a beer an finish reedin the article. It is interesting and it’s the least we can do for a guy who took a bullet. I’m not checking the box for email notification on reply so don’t expect a quick retort.

        2. Vernacular is often used in common writing on Internet posts and elsewhere. You picked one word out of 1,084 to attempt to discredit him? You couldn’t even write one grammatically correct sentence in your rebuke of his post.

        3. Donald, like the man said, it’s vernacular, a colloquialism, slang, whatever. I’m not an elitist, just a guy, so I have some fun with our language, time to time. But my original point stays – write smartly, let the “others” know we are much more than a bunch of “loons with guns”. Si?

      3. Enjoyed your comments. Thank you for your service. I’ve shot a lot as a hunter. 38 racks since 1974 is way over the average. You’ve got tons of history shooting so I’ll just add my two cents for kicks. Never cared for 5.56 for all the same reasons you covered. I want to know I dont need more than one shot and then move on to new target. On deer I use .308 win (7.62) in 150 gn BTSP. Would never go higher. If I were ever in combat and had a choice I’d go down to 100gn. I’d value your input. Not into all these new calibers you need to hunt for or order. 30.06 and .308 a pretty much identical ballistically. I chose .308. The short barreled M4 doesnt exactly trip my trigger. I’d want 4″ more. So in 100gn how much difference in carry weight would there be per day 100 ends? Wasn’t carry weight the whole reason the .308 was replaced by the 5.56? I never was in the military just ” special skill dept” in this war. But I’d feel better if I knew we have developed the ultimate weapon in an AR and that the SAW used the exact same round whatever grain bullet was chosen. You tell me. How’d troops feel about a 7.62 in 100gn?

        1. Russell, I’d have to defer to the numerous and skilled ballistics minds here. I fear that it would be a challenge to load a .308 case behind that light a bullet with the right powder and number of grains to prevent a tumbling effect somewhere along the trajectory… like the charge would overwhelm the round, but I could be way off. Worth trying.

          Nonetheless, when the serpent strikes, I’ll likely still reach for the 7.62×51, because I am old school, (even though 6.5 Creed and .300 BO youngsters reside next to it, because some of these guys like ’em so much I couldn’t resist). IF I have to crawl in the bushes, maybe the AK goes along; Charlie did OK with it, I recall. Got something for nearly everyone…

          Back to lurking. I’ve caused enough consternation and distress for now…

          1. The 200+ grain 300 BO subsonic are ideal for building clearing operations in urban environments with suppressed select fire SBR’s. This combo is the best means to minimize hearing loss of our warfighters. When I was young & dumb I suffered permanent hearing loss burning through 2 ammo cans shooting up the rats at the Cu Chi garbage dump w/my issued M16 on auto mode. Couldn’t hardly hear for a week.

    Leave a Comment 168 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *