Should NATO work on a replacement Rifle Cartridge to replace the 5.56x45 cartridge?

Question

Something that splits the difference between the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51, a mid range cartridge like the 6.8x43 would be useful not only against armored forces, but against unarmored threats aswell.

7.62x39 punches right through the Kevlar our boys are wearing if it doesn't hit the inserts.

With the 6.8 SPC and the 6.5 Grendel all you have to do is change the barrel on the existing 5.56 weapons, the cartridge would fit in the same chamber and would withstand the pressures.

Answer 1

No reason to. 7.62 are large, bulky and heavy. A soldier with 5.56 can carry more ammo into battle and that's the important thing.
also for today's battle tactics and weaponry there is no real reason for 7.62s or anything else. and making a 6.8 or something like that is to much of an expense, think of all the weapons and cartridges that take 5.56, replacing all of those costs alot of money.

Answer 2

Actually, with the upgrde to the AK-74, the venerable Soviet rifle adopted a 5.45mm round, very similar to the 5.56 in use with NATO. I really do hate the whole cost benefit analysis thing, but this is definitely one time that it is appropriate. The 5.56 and the 7.62 are NATO standards, and are in use with all of the nations that make up NATO. If we were to come up with a new rifle caliber, we would have to convince them to change as well. There are several million M-16A2 rifles in service with the US military, and every one of them would have to go away, not to mention the M4 carbine and the M249 squad automatic weapon. With an average cost of 500$ per weapon, this would mean over 1B$ to re-outfit the whole inventory. As one other answer states, the a small arms round, while it may have an "armor piercing" round, would be designed to punch through body armor.

By the way, the body armor worn by the military is more commonly known as a flak jacket, and is not intended to stop a bullet that is fired straight at the armor. It is designed to prevent shrapnel wounds to the vital orgrans. Although the military is upgrading to a law enforcement style of body armor (kevlar/ceramic plates), a well aimed shot can still kill you, especially from a high powered rifle.

The 5.56mm (commercially known as the .223), is an excellent round that is basically a .22 magnum on steroids. It has a very flat trajectory, and is point accurate to 850 yds. The 7.62mm (.308) is accurate to almost 1000 yards, and is an excellent choice for crew served weapons such as the M240G machine gun.

I'm not entirely sure why Remington felt the need to develop the 6.8mm, the only reason that I can find is that, apparently, there weren't enough different bullet calibers already on the market, so the needed to expand it. For the price of aquiring the 6.8mm, you could go ahead and get proven reliability, performance and piece of mind from something that you know has worked for years.

Answer 3

This is an argument that must have started just after they rifled the first barrel. It depends on what you consider the most important. The development of the Sturmgerweher 42 introduced the shortened cartridge which allowed the shooter to carry more ammo but limited his range. Firefight ranges had been discovered to be shorter than military intelligence stated which led to the AK47 and after the war NATO seeking an assault rifle and appropriate round. I have a report some where which says that the French and the Brits were developing a 6mm round and a bull pup designed weapons system to deliver it but were dissuaded by the US because the US were developing the M16 and the 5.56x45 cartridge. The thing is that there now exist situations where the range distances are expanding again. I am sorry but I have never seen a round from a shoulder fired weapon go through armour. Heard of it but I also have heard of a honest recruitment Sargent. But I do believe a 6mm round would be good because I sure as hell wouldn't want to be humping any .30 cal. around and I like to have as many rounds around me as possible.

Answer 4

Of course we should work on a replacement for the 5.56/45mm cartridge.

For the same reason we should be working on the replacement for the F22, the 688 class submarine and the M1 tank.

Situations change and we have to adapt to those changes. That means doctrine, weaponry etc.

Is 6.8/43 the answer? Who knows? That is what testing is for.

Answer 5

Personally I would prefer a 7.62, but the 5.56 with low recoil is probably easier to teach marksmanship to recruits that do not have any prior weapons experience. Actually I have read most combat fatalities are caused by crew served weapons heavy and light mgs, mortars, artillery etc etc So maybe it dosnt matter what the sidearm is as long as you can keep the crew served weapons firing.

Answer 6

No small arms round, with the exception of the.50cal, will penetrate armor. The 5.56 round is so lethal because of it's ultra high speed, flat trajectory at long range, small recoil when fired in bursts,and the type of wounds it inflicts. This caliber allows the shooter to place more rounds more accurately on target. Personally, I prefer the .308 (M-14)

Answer 7

We should but politics and certain companies wouldn't let that happen.The Canadians I ran into in Afghanistan had rechambered their M16s for 7.62 so it can be done for the 6.8x43.

Answer 8

I'm partial to a .300 WIn. Mag. Will shoot through about anything.

Answer 9

they should use the 7.62 to even the odds against the widely used AKs.

Answer 10

no, all guns should be banned