The sheer amount of this caliber that has been stockpiled by Americans over the last decade must be mind boggling. When half the country is sitting on thousands of rounds, this caliber is here to stay for a long, long time.
@@devs9979 Imagine all that surplus munitions. We might have another 7.62 type of surplus munitions in the future if the US finally changes its standard munitions.
the MIC doesnt care how many of the old stuff you have stockpiled, no money in that for them. They need to start a proxy war with countries that burn threw 5.56 the way Ukrops are burning through soviet ammo
Not thousands. Just one civilian or one fireteam in the military has thousands. Billions is more correct. Civilians have billions and the military has billions
5.56 comes up short but not enough shorter to make a difference. The benefits of a lightweight rifle, ease of training, soft recoil and the ability to carry a lot of ammo trumps the slight improvement in ballistics that you get from another cartridge.
@@RichardCranium321 How is it superior when the magazines hold less rounds, and it doesn't use common tooling, parts and accessories? It's only "superior" when you're sitting at a bench at the gun range. 6mm arc is not an improvement to the concept of a battle rifle unless all the military infantry become snipers.
If 5.56 is not enough for extended ranges the designated marksman takes over with the 7.62. It does require some math and a bit of common sense on the modern battlefield, but it’s not rocket science!
@Anne Frank you can still carry just as much 6arc as 5.56, not much overall weight difference per pill if you using something like Black hills 77gr otm, IMI 77gr razorcore, any Mk262 equivalent, the newer speer gold dot 223 or even some of the 70gr solid copper offerings from Barnes, Sierra, Norma - and if they seriously worried about the recoil of a round that's only .04 larger diameter then trigger time & repetition will alleviate any concerns.
I own an ar in 5.56 for the same reason I own a 9mm glock. Both are great platforms with kinda okay, kinda shitty cartridges but at the end of the day if shit goes down there is a massive probability that the people next to me are gonna have the exact same shit as me 🤷🏻♂️
And the person you take out, And a crashed car you found and a crashed blackhawk you found and the local police station armory. Then also at the end of the day noone want to be hit with a rock at 2800+ fps too Take care friend!
Not just that but you can actually buy ammunition for it in reasonable quantities without having to bankrupt yourself. I love my 10mm, 6.5 grendel, and .300 blackout but those are all near $1 per round.
Imo if shit hits the fan, 😢The 5.56 is gonna run out very fast and I think most of the people capable of reloading ammo are going to choose 308 and 45. Edit: and 12 gauge
Same. I just "switched" to the AR 5.56 as my primary platform in 2019 for compatibility reasons in case the need arises for citizens homeland defense. I still prefer 7.62x39 and .30-06 for a lot of applications, but I've learned a ton about 5.56 since getting some time and training on the platform and I've come to really respect both the cartridge and especially the 20" AR-15. I've come to find that 5.56 fills it's niche REALLY well when it's being implemented properly.
This guy shoots 80,000 rounds a year and if, and I mean if, I can find primers, they are priced at 15 cents each. This guy lives in a different world from the rest of us.
@@mendelevium3761 Its gotten the same as NuFancy.. I just got tired of watching kids in a candy store play with shit that I will never afford .. nor can get my hands on.. and I cringe when I see these gun influencers just cum ammo like its water..... a lot of people are hurting right now and are in bad straights and this kinda shit is sorta insulting to the gun masses... but hey , its America, he can do what he wants at the end of the day
@@mendelevium3761 just because he shoots for much less cost than we can doesn't mean his information is inaccurate. If he was reviewing specific brands of ammo and Federal constantly came up on top THEN I would question his motives. As it is, the information is mostly on weapons and platforms and specific bullet types, not brands.
Get off your couch and go make your own videos, get sponsored and get free ammo, bet you wont complain anymore. Its called capatilism, he benefits by speaking on calibers and brands, and the company benefits by selling more and producing more ammo which increases availbility.. Are you sure you arent a closet communist?
Folks, 9mm NATO is the world standard pistol cartridge and it’s over 100 years old. Law enforcement and civilian personal defense will keep the 5.56mm carbine relevant for the next 50+ years l.
Same can be said for 12 gauge shotguns they've been around since 1912 and yet they're still one of the most used not only shotgun calibers, but general gun calibers in the world by civilians, law enforcement and military. The 12g is so well used it's seen every war from world War 1 to current date.
9mm was chosen over larger/more effective chamberings because the germans and soviets primarily used their pistols for shooting bound men on their knees in the back of the head. A century of effort has increased its effectiveness... but is it really the best? Is it what you would want to have in a gunfight given any other option?
@@AbolishTheATF aaaa no for the simple but very effective reason that if that was really the case then why isn't every military using full auto 9mm because if we want to go cheap and supposedly effective 9mm is the uncontested winner by literally every measurable aspect in turns of killing potential.
Imagine if you will: a 6.8 SPC diameter (polymer?) case with a 6mm bullet, operating at a high enough pressure to get the same muzzle velocity as the fatter 6mm ARC cartridge. Now _that_ might make a good candidate for displacing 5.56x45mm.
6.5 Grendel is a poor man's 6arc. The Grendel does need a curved magazine but the 12.5 I built has been very reliable even shooting steel cased wolf (currently $.72 a round). Ballistically a 123 grain bullet out of a 12" 6.5 Grendel has the same energy on target as a 123grain bullet out of a 16" 7.62X39 AK. 12" Grendel is my favorite gun ammo combo right now.
When I went to USMC Boot Camp in the early 70's we trained with M-14's Damn those things were heavy. Then we were issued M16's once we were in the fleet. I still love the .308, but my AR's are 5.56. 5.56 isnt going away in my lifetime.
I was also a builder / defender in a combat engineer unit. We did MOUT training, lots of convoys, and did see urban warfare on our missions in OIF stabilizing Ramadi in 2005. I served with 0311 / 11Bs in Ramadi at various outposts and they had mainly M4s / M16 A4s for patrols but most of firefights they got into they used belt feds 249/240Bs to engage Iraqi insurgents from armored vehicles in convoys. I did see some of the 2ID guys with M14 DMRs and ran into some 2nd MEF snipers with M40 rifles, but everyone pretty much had M4 / M16s. I would say the most important thing was not the 5.56 caliber, but the fact the Army and Marines were now using Aimpoint / ACOG optics, but this was 17 years ago.
Just like 9mm has been around forever, .223/5.56 will be as well. There are way too many 5.56 rifles in circulation to warrant the need to stop mass production of that caliber. Maybe years down the road another caliber will become more popular, but for now don't expect anything to change.
another thing to factor in is how much these guns and ammo costs..im not going to invest in a weapons system where the rifle is 2 grand a unit or ammo is 1.60 a round
@@justinlance4174 your right..but the ammo companys are only going to make what the demand is for..if the guns are to expensive for most people to buy the demand will be low and they will only makea small percentage..
If I could get 5.56 in 77gr mk262 or 62gr M855a1 for a decent price, I'd never need anything else. As it stands, I rock a 20 inch A4 clone for the longer barrel (as I live in the country and need the extra velocity) and a 10.5 300blk for close/urban.
I'm still learning about the basics of ballistics, but, doesn't going to a heavier grain 5.56 require a higher twist rate, thus a barrel dedicated to such, to gain any advantage at distance?
I myself keep all my battle mags and go mags with mk262. Yes I paid big $ for them. Now I got a great ammo guy who builds my training ammo to the mk262 specs. I consider myself lucky to have this guy. It performs better out of all barrel lengths. I use a 14.5 and 11.85 with them. I couldn't see using a 55gr or even 62gr. Everything from the BC to the accuracy is better. Now I do have a personal love for 300blkout and use it out of a 9in and 16in bolt gun for hunting and have hit animals out to 300 yards and dropped them. The myth 300blkout is for only short distances is not even close to true. Watch Mr.G&G 300blkout break down. Anyway good point sir and I agree with you.
5.56 does come up short in a lot of ways. But I think what it has going for it is that it doesn't score low in any category. There are several calibers that are better for specific task. But if you had to pick one to use in ANY situation, the 5.56 is basically the multitool of the firearm world.
Scores pretty low in range compared to other rifle calibers. 6mm cartridges are typically much more efficient, they just weren't quite there when 5.56 started to gain momentum and never lost it. It works, but there are better alternatives. There is no technical reason to keep using it, only political and historical.
I would say that typical combat is 200 yards and less, well within the effective range of the 5.56. WWII battles rarely needed 500 yard shots, unless you were a sniper. The argument for the Garand was size of the bullet hitting the target, not the effective range. Range in most combat situations is not a valid argument against the 5.56. Energy at the target, that's another story for debate.
@Mark Harwood in high intensity combat (like WW2 and what we see now in Ukraine), small arms are not the major casualty producing weapons. High explosives are (in the way of artillery, armor, and air support). Even in Ukraine, we're seeing infantry engagements still occurring inside 200m. And the 5.45mm is still effective in these ranges.
@@armynurseboy HOOAH! King of Battle!! I don't think a comparison between a 5.56 mm round and a 155 mm round is fair! Just kidding. Well not really, but that was not intended to be a smart aleck comment! However, the discussion is about small arms ammo.
The AR platform in 5.56 is loved because its stupid easy to learn and shoot... when you are talking about entire armies, that is preferred over some better balistics
@@Evilroco all the countries that have put money into ammo infrastructure in their countries to produce 556 would have to change to another round even if it is better you talking about Millions of dollars that some countries don't have and won't have for at least 10-15 years down the road if they (NATO) completely switch over. It works period I would rather have 556 with good air support then I would, making sure I have a good rifle round I don't care about that as long as I have air support and artillery to back me up that's where the money needs to go not changing calibers to get a slight advantage in a firefight when having air and artillery support is far more important.
I think with each advancement in small arms ammunition, we are seeing the effects of diminished returns. Yes there are superior calibers ballistically and logistically but for the civilian market, cost is of even greater importance. How many dudes are willing to move to a new platform or chamber with a 200% increase in Ammo cost but only a 19%-23% increase in ballistic performance? Considering in civillian life, justifying lethal force against an aggressor gets harder the further you move away from 55 yards.
Well if you look at the ARC, compared to the 5.56, its not a 20% gain, its closer to 80-100% gain in effective range and terminal ballistics closer to .308 at 600-1000 meters, purely based on the data 5.56 should be obsolete for military applications, but you hit the nail on the head as far as the civilian market, what would motivate an individual to make the switch based on the ballistics? I'd love to hear the hypothetical scenario for self defense beyond 150 yards. The FBI data says 7 yards is the average self defense situation, with Rittenhouse all three engagements were within 15 yards I believe.
yeah like the "dump your .308 and get a 6.5 " Unless you are competing in a shooting sport or in hot combat where that little bit makes all the difference, your "outdated" cartridge is still going to be just as lethal today as it was yesterday. If it works, and you can shoot it accurately you don't need to discard it for the next best thing. until there is some MAJOR change. bolt gun vs semi, 8rd enbloc vs higher capacity detachables, irons only vs modern optics ect...
It’s a lot more than 20%. You’re talking 1000m effective range with the 6.8x51. That’s on a single target. Compare that to 500m with the m4. 560 if you have the m16 still. Our guys in the field are finding that it takes 5-6 rounds to bring a man down right now. Sure 1 shot can kill a man if it’s placed right. But when your engagements are at 300-500+ yards the 5.56 just doesn’t carry that well at those distances. 6.8 or an ARC or 6.5 etc would have more power and more accuracy at those distances. Even with the trade off of weight and recoil it’s gonna be more like an 80% increase in performance.
The Vietnam Vets I have spoken with came up against far more SKS rifles , than AK's . .556 was designed to be utilized in a 20 inch barreled AR . Lately it seems as if shorter barrels are being used more and more and there is an obvious down side to this. As for me , I am partial to an 18 or 20 inch barreled rifle with 1 in 8 twist along with heavier bullet weights for stability.
Anything under 18" of a barrel in 556 is really under performing the round. Many people seem fine with this somehow then complain it takes a bunch of hits to be effective. lol
@@geronimo5537 for the individual it’s not an issue as you can pick ammunition optimized for the shorter barrel, but yes it’s absolutely dump to be putting ammunition made for a 20” barrel through a 12” barrel and complaining about its performance.
Keep 5.56 for close range. 6.8x51 and other full size cartridges are great for longer range. They are different tools. Keep them both available and use the 6.8 for DMRs.
Well said. I recently injected myself into an argument about the 9mm and .45 acp . My position is both are good 👍. There really isn't in my opinion that there is a go everywhere do everything cartridge.
The 77 grain at 5.56 pressures was the refresh that the 5.56 needed to make it a bit more relevant. The 14.5" barrel on the M4 is what makes it irrelevant. Even extending the barrel to 16" and utilizing heavier bullets brings the 5.56 into the realm of 21st century reality. In Canada, we use the 20.5" C7 and the 16" C8. I believe these barrel lengths keep the 5.56 more relevant. Now, in the northern part of the country where I live, distance and range mean very little. Heavily wooded forests and extreme cold and large animals are the norm. Here, 7.62x39 makes more sense than any boutique cartridge. Many guys rushed out and bought 6.5 Creed's and have since dusted off their old .30-06's once again. Let's face it, is the modern battlefield a 1000 meter battlefield or is it an under 500 meter battlefield. If the battlefield remains close, then the 5.56 will fit the bill.
There is a gain of around 70 FPS going from a 14.5 to 16" barrel, it is irrelevant in combat so your point that a 1.5" barrel decrease somehow makes the M4 irrelevant is bogus.
Nobody is using 30-06 in ELR or PRS. I think 6.5 creed gained a odd amount of popularity as it was intended as a precision match round… and it does that very well. It wasn’t intended to replace hunting or war cartridges. Those who bought it for that were buying into it for the wrong reasons.
@@djl5634 30-06 is a beast of a round no doubt! It will always be iconic and useful. I just find the crowd that hates the 6.5 creedmoor… and that they always compare it to rounds with completely different use cases. The 6.5 was meant for precision match shooting. Much like the 6mm creed. They weren’t meant to compete with or replace .223/308/30-06/etc etc (though it would be a great upgrade from to .223 if the ammo wasn’t so god awful expensive).
@@azazelRising72 correct. And it isn't the purpose of their conversation either. I would LOVE for them to switch to 6ARC. It would give me a reason to buy one since the prices would drop dramatically just due to sheer volume. I jumped on the Grendel bandwagon too early. As great a round as it is (Baby Creedmoor) the magazines are a pain in the ass to work with. Even the Amend2 Grendel specific magazines don't drop free because of the way the round bulges the top of the magazines.
Whatever changes are made to military ammo, change the weight of the Soldier's load. Bigger, heavier cartridge equals heavier load. You end up with diminishing returns. If military planners think that Afghanistan is going to be the norm - they should change the rifle round. If not, keep the 5.56. If the enemy is exchanging rounds with you at 800m - call in artillery on their position.
yea exaclty we still dont need a bigger round or to get rid of the 5.56 where just in a super rare senario where our guns are slightly out of range its not worth putting a new gun and heavier ammo on soilders just to get a extra 100m range on the battlefield that outside of afgan will never be used
Actually, a light cartridge doesn't equal a lighter load. As the old saying goes, "Military intelligence is an oxymoron." Make cartridges lighter, the military mindset is, "Cool! Now we can carry more ammo, and still load the soldier down like a burro, and still destroy his spine inside a few years."
@@VT-mw2zb Unless you get ambushed and just supplied a Guerilla squad for a lifetime. Seriously, 210 rounds per person or even more, what do you want to do with that, aside from special ammo intensive missions? I'm asking a serious question here. Seems to me like a bad idea which everyone just repeats without questioning. As I understand the modern doctrine is pretty much back to something akin to "shoot to kill" not "spray and pray".
@@xsu-is7vq So because of stupid one liners you settle on a caliber that's made for 70s tech with iron sights instead of sub moa weapons with modern optics. How much water do you carry, may I ask? Don't answer, it's a rethorical question. This however, is not a rethorical question: "I always wondered, what do you do with all those rounds?"
5.56 in the M4A1 will continue to have a place for support troops. And in that roll, it is perfect. It would in some respect take the place of the M1 Carbine from WWII. I can see I return to a bifurcation of arms where front line troops have 6.8x51mm NGSW and rear-echelon troops have 5.56x45mm M4A1s.
I have a 6 arc rifle and I love it, but I almost wish a rifle was designed from the ground up for it. My 16in barrel I would say performs on par or close to a 20in .243, based on velocities and bullet weights. The round is extremely efficient. However the bolt face is still a potential point of failure, an easily replaceable one, but the cartridge is limited to much lower pressures out of an ar-15 platform because of it. I would like to see SIG take the MCX line and develop a rifle and bolt face around the 6 arc using the 6.8X51 ammunition tech they developed. That would be a screamer, with much lower recoil capable of the high pressure performance, but lighter in weight and recoil.
Geissele introduced some 6 ARC AR's at SHOT Show 2022 that they say were designed from the ground up for the round. They're also coming out with a new magazine designed specifically for 6 ARC. DEVGRU has been using 6 ARC for some time now and I believe they're getting good results using 24-round E-Lander 6.5 Grendel mags for 6 ARC.
@@vgt I saw that as well, but I am not seeing anywhere where geissele mentioned they redesigned the ar-15 bolt or the mag well to fix deficiencies in the system. It sounds like a purpose built ar-15 for the round, but not an engineered rifle built for it. The bolt face and the mag issues being solved via a new rifle would make it a truly great alternative to the ar-15 in 5.56.
@@yo9758 I would when you account for bullet weight and barrel length needed to achieve max performance from a .243 win. In a bolt gun I have seen hand loaders get them neck and neck with the same bullets.
During the 1960's there were some radical weapons intended to replace the M-14 rifle. The M16 was a temporary expedient. Reminds me--as late as 2009 I was using "temporary" buildings left over from the First World War, thrown up during 1917, in multiple states! The M16 has been a temporary expedient for almost sixty years now.
The Garand was originally designed to utilize the .276 Pederson in a 10 round enblock clip. This Cartridge predates the .276 British by over a decade for sure. This cartridge was 6.8 x 51 of lower pressure than the 3006 and required lubed ammunition which could be problematic.
we've been effectively using .223 handloads in 18" & 20" barrels out to 500yds. for years to deal w/ coyotes. Any barrel length shorter than 18" reduces the effective range / BC on that caliber. 6.8 SPC or 6.8 Rem is an excellent cartridge , but so is Wilson Combat's 300 HAM'R problem both are in short supply & therefore expensive in comparison.
Thank you. Yes I even shoot coyotes with 22 hornet at closer range. I thought is was ridiculous him saying that. People including professionals use .223 for hog hunting and even deer hunting in some states. But yes barrel length helps.
An 11.5" will put almost 400 lbs of energy on a target at 500 yds with 5.56mm TMK with only about 30" of drop. A plain old run of the mill 55gr .223 soft point is perfectly fine for deer.
5.56 is great, you just need that 18-20" of barrel. All this 16" carbine stuff gives up so much in velocity that no one seems to talk about. 300-400 yards is no problem with a proper length M16 and ball ammo.
@@gifthorse3675 I don't find it too long. It's far smoother shooting as a rifle, than as a carbine. If you need it shorter, just put the butt stock over your shoulder.
You really don't lose that much going from a 20" gun to a 16" gun in my experience. Like 100-150 fps with a lot of loads, sometimes less sometimes more. After that it does start to become more noticeable though. I have absolutely no problem with 16" guns but I'm a real sucker for mk12 type guns
@@AnarchAngel1 A 18 or 20” barrel shooting a 77g MK262, is plenty efficient. The combination of the army using a 14.5” barrel with conjunction of the m855/m193 was vastly reduced, to the combination I mentioned above
The strengths you're mentioning of the other rounds just don't weigh heavily in the combat environments the military has operated in for the last few decades. The typical infantryman doesn't need to hit prairie dog size targets, at long range, in high wind. While 5.56 may not be the greatest round ever made, it's been very effective for what we need it to do and there's no pressing need to change it.
I am surprised to see this statement and the likes on it, from what I have seen of combat footage and listening to the stories from soldiers over in the middle east, range was absolutely an issue, think about the geography and the photos you have seen, treeless mountain ranges, small towns out in the open with little more than dust and dirt for hundreds of yards in most directions, just a couple weeks ago, I was listening to a podcast where the soldier was joking about the enemy regularly setting up 450-500 meters outside the towns the soldiers had moved into, and they would lob bullets at them knowing that soldiers really couldn't do anything more than lob bullets back. He said it went on long enough that finally each squad, unit, or what ever they were called was designated one AR10, and this soldier was laughing at how the poor guy with the AR10 was getting run all over the place because essentially the rest of the unit was spread out as spotters, so the guy with the AR10 had 8-10 team mates hollering for him to come to their positions at different times in different spots.
@@EssPhour There is no one size fits all solution. Vietnam started with battle rifles and then transferred to intermediate rounds. the m14 had alot of problems in that environment, but ranges were generally shorter and 7.62 nato was overkill. Volume of fire, and reduced recoil was preferred for that type of fighting. later on in the mid east they started digging out mothballed m14s and attempted modernizing them as EBRs. Now you've got the scarH filing that role and doing a much better job. just like the army's failed universal camo pattern. any attempt at going with a one size fits all solution, your going to have to make compromises. sometime that comes back to bite you hard. It's really better to have multiple options, that can be adapted to a given situation, but then you run into logistics issues. You have more ammunition, magazine, weapon, and part varieties that have to be handled, transported ect, also costs of fielding more than one weapons system. What is the maximum number of each weapon you can produce per year, and will producing both hinder the production of either, and lead to shortages of weapons. you have to have armory support for both. You also have to take into account training on the various weapons platforms. So there will always be a compromise, because at the end of the day the logistics is going to be the deciding factor. the Germans did not understand this during ww2. they invented a lot of amazing weapons, but many of them didn't get produced in quantity enough to make a serious impact, or only started to reach serious production too late in the war. Also the U.S. tends to enter most conflicts with outdated tactics of the previous war. because you don't really know what kind of war you'll be fighting until your in it. The one thing that might force change, is increased use of body armor. that is a case where 5.56, and even most .30 cal cartridge's really don't cut the mustard.
@@EssPhour That did happen, typically after accurate return fire they retreated. The thing is 99% of the time all you're doing is carrying it and ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.
@@EssPhour That wasn't my experience in Iraq. Yes there were areas of wide open space, but the enemy never engaged us from out in the open. They were typically hidden within the cities so they could fire and retreat and disappear into the the civilian population, meaning we had to close distance to engage them anyway. We also had sniper platoons that could reach out and touch somebody at long range if that was something we needed. Overall though, there wasn't enough long range need to justify replacing our entire rifle and ammo inventory.
My father used m14 in vietnam his first tour, the m14 at first and m16 later during second tour. He praised the m16 for exactly the reason it's great, the ammo. When a sniper team could carry 1000 rounds for the m16 you cannot beat it.
Why I like the 7.62 x 39 round more than the 7.62 x 51. You can carry a lot more of it and it is effective to 325 yards and somewhat effective to about 425 yards.
The bullet drop is close to 10 feet using 7.62 x 39 at 500 yards using a sixteen inch barrel with 123 grain bullets. At 400 yards that bullet drop is close to 63 inches. I have talked with other long range shooters as well who have said they would keep 7.62 x 39 rifle rounds inside of 425 yards. Good luck getting hits with 7.62 x 39 beyond about 425 yards. The round just was not designed for long ranges.
When the role of the infantry today is to suppress tiny heat miraged silhouettes at 600-800+ meters long enough to call in air support, the difference of whether or not they're missing all those shots with 5.56 or 6mm ARC makes little difference to a military bean counter.
@@jameskobi6111 i agree (cheaper, lighter, carry more, more effective at close range, lower recoiling), but the Army keeps saying they want something that can defeat near peer body armor. That's their intent even if I think it's flawed.
Yeah, i think the 75 and 77 grain BTHP rounds are game changers for the 5.56 cartridge. I can hit milk jugs at 1,000 yards with my 18" SPR build and spray paint cans at 730 yards with about a 40% hit ratio. Out of one of my 18" SPR rifles i'm getting 1,478 FPS and 374 ft lbs of energy at 600 yards. I think that's fine. It's 1,653 fps and 467 ft lbs at 500 yards which is just fine for lethality. 1,564 fps and 418 ft lbs at 550 yards. Even my 16" SCAR 16 is 1,550 fps and 414 ft lbs at 550 yards with IMI 77 grain.
@@borkwoof696 yeah Tim wants an infantryman’s rifle that shoots .5” groups, functions as a machine gun and sniper rifle, and allows him to hit prairie dogs at 300 yards with a 25mph crosswind
This was a terrific studio debate/discourse. I would love to see this as a template to try/eval a platform, cartridge, etc w/ guest or 2 (review even) - heck, you could put out survey questions about what the viewers would like to see covered.
Imagine not having confidence in your ammo to kill a varmint, but having supreme confidence in killing a human that is 3x times bigger, wears armor and is actively trying to kill you. XD My philosophy on this matter is, "if you aren't comfortable hunting deer with a gun, you shouldn't be comfortable hunting humans with the same gun"
I have both. For self defense they’re equal but get both & place them in different places around the house, each will serve a purpose & you get the best of both. I keep the 5.56 in the truck & 308 in a safe with body armor (since I’d ideally wear ear protection before shooting the 308).
My take away from this discussion is that they seem to be forgetting what the M16 and the 5.56 was designed to do in the first place it is an assault rifle and it does that job very well and therefore it is not a sniper rifle nor is it a designated Marksman rifle. The same problem occurred during the global war on terror when Special Forces operators where firing thousands of rounds through the M4 on full auto trying to turn it into a squad automatic weapon. The problem I feel is that too many people are trying to make this weapon system do something that it was never intended to do, now that being said you can modernize the AR-15 M16 you can swap calibers around and make it fill different roles however at the end of the day this cartridge and the rifle that fires it were designed together to be an assault rifle and therefore it shines within its design parameters. It's only when you try to press it into a role that it wasn't designed for that you realize it has shortcomings that is not a fault of the design instead in my opinion that is a result of the end-user trying to make do something it was never going to be able to do, remember the a10 warthog it's a amazing attack aircraft what it is not is an amazing fighter jet.
@@thehardcoretruth8777 There absolutely is such a thing as an assault rifle. Rifle capable of fully automatic fire (or bursts) chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Calling an AR-15 an assault rifle is dishonest but calling an M4 one is not
@@AnarchAngel1 assault rifle is a term made up to scare people to make them think guns are bad and will attack you lol . Anyone using these terms does not understand guns and plays too many video games. People that know about guns laugh at people using these terms. I served I carried these weapons you speak of and you have no idea what your talking about an M4 is a short barrel Ar15.
Really enjoyed this, shooting my whole life, I love the 5.56 at 350 and in or so but I hate to think of it ice picking past 450-500 yards.... Instead of grabbing a 308, would love to just have a 6arc that can do it all well and out to 800
Thank you Gentlemen for this instructive and entertaining conversation. I've got to say I've particularly appreciated Pad's grounded attitude and perspective. As other commenter have pointed out, 5.56 was meant to be used out of a 20 inch barrel and provide light recoil, which it does ; being a one-size-fits-all is a big ask for any cartridge. Greetings from France. 👍
556 is an all around amazing cartridge for varmint hunting great for defense against 2 legged varmints (not as deadly as a lot of other rounds but much more controllable and can hold more rounds). Perfect for war, if you can wound your enemy you take more then one man out of the fight (the one that was shot and those that need to get them to a doctor, you also use up the enemy’s resources to get the solider back to good health). That being said I like the 6.5 grendel even more and for all the same reasons
Where the mistake was made was when we got away from a 20" barrel and we got away from the rifle twist for the M-193 ammo. The M-16 itself is still a viable platform if wasn't shortened up and castrating it.
@@bradenmchenry995 If you are using a cartridge like the 5.56 the 20" barrel is needed for several reasons. I have several 16" rifles and they are great, but 20" is really the sweet spot.
The 5.56 is in just such a sweet spot. It does everything acceptably well, it’s light, cheap to manufacture, can be carried in large quantities. Nothing else has enough advantage in every category to overcome its inertia.
You have a point, but also another advantage that was touted about it was the fact that it's light to carry compared to what the ComBlock countries had to. So our soldiers didn't have to choose between ammunition and food.
7.62 x 39 does most things better over 5.56 x 45 until you get to longer ranges around 280 to 300 yards. The 7.62 x 39 It is still everywhere as well and among the cheaper rifle cartridges. It is too bad the United States military did not take the advice of Special Forces and dumped the 6.8 x 43 Special Purpose Cartridge. It is a great intermediate rifle round but too expensive and uncommon presently.
@@Apocalypse_Cow remains to be seen *if* the M4s are being replaced or or just complemented with the M5s. Initial order seem more like an expanded troop trial than anything else.
This conversation reminds me of the 6x45 NATO Program. Back in the 1990's I owned a Colt SP1 with 24" match barrel, A1 sights and flash hider and triangular A1 handguards. It shot great but I had to make brass from 5.56x45 and handload for it. Prices got crazy during the AWB and I sold it for $4300 and bought more 5.56x45 NATO ammunition and built a couple of nice accurate AR's and another car.
So is 5.7, 30sc, 300bo or 9mm. Or 6arc for that matter. A lot of rounds would suffice, 5.56 isn't really better at it in any particular fashion. Arguably not even the most well rounded.
I’m curious the amount of engagements are outside of 500 yards versus inside 500. If the majority isn’t outside 500 yards it ain’t gonna be worth changing the primary caliber.
On a dismounted patrol we carry a lot of 5.56mm, but we supplement with usually at least 1 scoped m14 and at least one 7.62mm machine gun. So at any range we are effective
WW2 the overwhelming contact was within 300 yds and most kills inside 200 yds. Iron sights part of that. Vietnam the contact was well within 200 yds. But Iraq and Afghanistan the contacts were often out side 300 meter or ambushes from cover.
Unless you are fighting a colonial war, infantry engagement range is equal to the artillery's minimum safety distance. Which is less than 150yds (in wartime).
@@nmende00 So if they were 5.45s you think US Soldiers would just be jumping and hopping around outside of cover or something? LOL A fucking bullet is a bullet. I've seen the damage a 5.56 does to a human body, one shot in the leg and you're completely out of the battle. Look at what the 5.56 did to that kid in Kenosha, it literally ripped his bicep out. You think anyone is going to continue to shoot in that condition?
@@Immortalkalashnikov They did not refrain from shooting back out of fear. They didnt shoot back bc they couldnt hit the enemy from long range. 5.56 velocity at 500 yds is around 1200 fps. by that point u get zero fragmentation.
@@nmende00 That's retarded. US Soldiers would've been equipped with 20" M16A4s with ACOGs. They're at a huge advantage at that range. Especially against an old Russian bolt action rifle. I'm assuming you're referring to a mosin nagant which has horrendous sights. US Soldiers would've been able to get many more rounds down range than the Taliban would. Plus, every squad would've been equpied with a DMR that is armed with an M14 chambered in 7.62x51. Why would they not fire back? At 500 yards a 5.56 is still going to do a lot of damage and take anybody out of the fight. And since they can get multiple rounds down range, a person getting hit multiple times with a 5.56 will not have the capacity to move around as if they were uninjured.
It seems to me that when the 5.56 is evaluated, the 55 grain projectile is considered the standard. But for long range use, we should be evaluating the performance of the 77 grain HPBT. I appreciate your work very much and I'm still a big fan of the excellent effectiveness to weight ratio of the .223 cartridge.
The problem is it looses alot of velocity vs 55gr... that can get through steel the 62gr can't... 77gr is awesome for deer... .224 valkyrie is a great long range round for the ar... but I don't see .223 leaving any time soon they have been trying to replace it since they invented it for the ar...
💯. Especially if you start playing w powders and twists for new standard lengths. Haven't looked into 5.56 in a while but in 308 you loose less velocity as you shorten up barrel w heavier rounds.
I don't see small arms being very effective in general on 21st century battlefields. In Ukraine it appears to be mostly guided weapons of various kinds , drones , rocket launchers , mortars, artillery. mines. Even the Russians going CQB in Mariupol are going 'door to door' behind IFV,tanks and self propelled howitzers. It is sort of like the AK-12 the 5.45mm is used like what used to be 9mm sub machine guns. So given that small arms are largely a weapon of last resort a 5.56m is fine.
it has always been like this in symmetrical warfare. Artillery and other heavy gear is for doing damage, infantry with rifles is for keeping that stuff safe.
Right. Actual small arms fire is CQB or sniper fire. In CQB, 5.56 and 5.45 are excellent, and sniper fire will always be a large cartridge. In the civilian world, it's the same story - CQB or hunting. Military guys like MAC talking about the inefficiencies of 5.56 at intermediate ranges (300-800 yards) do so out of experience fighting the last war - an asymmetric war in mountainous terrain. They weren't fighting near-peer adversaries. "Defeating body armor" is a fool's errand. Rifle rated armor requires a massive cartridge like .338 LM to defeat at close range. It's impractical to do. Suppress the enemy and call in CAS or other high explosive weaponry.
no its not. when your have 556 and boris comes through the door with plate armor that can stop it your dead. you need some thing that will knock him on his ass. even if it dose not go through the plate a man on the floor is one less to wory about in a situation like that. then theres trench warfare which is happening in ukraine. 556 is not that good at long range.
It depends of the terrain you're fighting in. In Ukraine it is flat open land. The same combat tactics wouldn't apply in say a Vietnam terrain setting.
@@ashlevrier 556 is okay at 500 meters, and most grunts, not to mention draftees and volunteers will not reach sensibly over 300-400 meters so all is good. As for CQB, you can easily spray Boris with burst of 556, and whether his plate will hold multiple hits or not, he will most likely have some holes in legs, arms and face as well. As a mediocre shooter myself, not a pro like MAC who shoots 50 thousand rounds a year, i have to say id feel more comfortable with 556/545 carbine rather than something more powerfull.
He keeps saying Stoner's design was around the 5.56. It was not! It was around the 7.62x51. He was forced to downsize to 5.56. But it was not what Stoner originally envisioned. The AR-10 was!
@@92vanguard Fair enough. It's a bit more nuanced in that I don't think he was particularly attached to any one cartridge, and basically designed each rifle around the cartridge, rather than being forced. With the AR-15, he picked the cailber, designed the bullet, and lead the development of the cartridge, then redesigned the AR-10 around it. I think the work he did on the AR-15 and the cartridge is enough to count as "original" but it's not the first time he used the bolt as piston design.
@@grahampritchard2253 he only chose to go with the intermediate .222 Remington and him designing the cartridge was telling Remington there might be a government contract if they tweak a already popular commercial cartridge . Stoner hardly invented 223 hahaha He only made the AR15 to chamber it as he was told his 308 version AR10 was good but they wanted a smaller lighter bullet for there next service rifle . Most definitely the AR10 in 308 was the original Stoner design and concept . And to this day it’s by far the better gun having a handful of each over the years the 556 gun is more of the gun for the inexperienced shooter who is on your team if you have a choice you’d want to choose the 308 AR for yourself given the opportunity.
@@JoeWayne84 I'm going off of interviews with him that are on UA-cam. He claimed to have come up with the bullet and worked with various companies to come up with the load. It wasn't. 223 Remington until he came along. He was given a list of requirements and found a way to meet them. Call it whatever you want.
For military purposes, they would need to re design the AR rifle, "like LWRCI did with the 6.8 SPC" if they adopted the 6mm ARC...Bolt life is a concern if used in a standard AR platform...
Patents are the enemy of the AR-15 IMO. If you picked all the best innovations out there and combined them into one rifle it would be a true generational leap and incredibly robust, and you could probably get away with using bigger cartridges and cranking up the pressure, but you'll never get all the manufacturers to share their patents without throwing inordinate amounts of money at them.
@@agentoranj5858 I agree with your premise / goal, but I'm more optimistic when it comes to your conclusion. Yes, synthesis of all the most desirable features of various inventors' / manufacturers' ideas created the most of today's best products, and would solve nearly all the remaining shortfalls of the suboptimal ones. Our "all or nothing" / "cradle to grave" procurement system is the obstacle, though; synthesis would be in the patent-holders' best interest as well as the soldiers'. Any manufacturer (not just military contract winners, but anyone who makes and sells anything) is bundling different profits into the price: the buyer is paying for his IP, and also up-charges on materials, factories / machinery, labor, and subcontractors' fees. All those latter items are gambles. Commodity price fluctuations, strikes, inflation, subcontractor QA issues, etc. can bankrupt you if your margins are low; build in too much slop, and you might price yourself out of the contract. For an inventor or investor, a royalty is a relatively risk-free "bird in the hand".
I’m all for 6mm ARC. However, the 5.56 is still a serviceable cartridge for general use in a militia context. It’s plentiful and works good enough. Changing to a new round, though it sounds easy, has quite a few supply/logistics hurdles to overcome.
Good points. 5.56 is a Niche Cartridge with a very useful Niche, which to me extends into a support role for a much more effective extremely wide role MBR Rifle and Cartridge. Personally I really like that other new combination to fill another Niche, which is the Compact Persinal Defence Weapon, the B&T in .280 ACP. Niches are what surround a MBR, and are just as needed as the MBR, to me anyway. Important lessons from Historical Engagements need to be remembered not forgotten, or we pay a heavy price while relearning them. Too much attention has lingered on WW2 Eastern Front Combat, and weapons for that wouldn't have coped in Korea for example, and didn't cope in Korea because needed Niches weren't filled. Hilltop Machine gun Nests couldn't elevate high enough to clear the bodies in front of them, and there weren't the Niche weapons to keep attackers away from those machine guns. Once the Machine Guns were silenced to only option was withdraw, or die. One British Defender found a Niche weapon, as they were attacked while drinking beer from the beer delivery. A bit pissed off at his drinking session being interrupted, he grabbed artfully of empty bottles and started throwing them at the attacking Chinese, who turned and Ran, thinking he was throwing hand grenades at them. Apparently he got a VC for that. Told to me by the Bren gun Carrier Driver who had fetched the beer for the Unit. 😅
But the military made it worse by adopting the Sig spear. Whole new platform, heavier rifle and less load out. 6MM ARC would’ve been a better way to go.
@@baliktad8 Agreed. We have a Procurement Problem that ignores lessons learned and which has been severeky adversely influenced by the ridiculous attempt to ban the use of Lead for only Fake Science induced Reasons. The Same mistake on an even grander scale is the move to make all Military Vehicles Battety Powered Electric Vehicles. The Stupidity is now clearly Completely Out of Control. ☹️
@@baliktad8 Totally agree. The new M5 would be better in 6mm ARC. But even more cost effective would be to convert M4’s to 6mm ARC. But, as usual, the Army is planning/equipping for the last war versus focusing on the fundamentals. Meanwhile, all branches are hurting when it comes to recruiting and retention.
I'm only 10 minutes in, but I think the important thing to think about is WHERE we expect to be fighting the next pointless ground war thats going to get thousands of young men killed for no reason, the terrain, climate, etc are very relevant as to whether 5.56 is "good enough" or not
I used the M16, and the M9 all my military career and that's pretty much what I use without any problems with them. I will not pass judgment on the 6.8 ARC until I have some range time with it. I have used my AR10 and loved it, I've always wished the Army would've gone that way but no I'm not that lucky. I'm kind of an old Army guy because I love my M1 Garand, M14, and my 1911s. In fact, my daily carry is a 45ACP.
IMO from my military experience if you want a happy compromise in the best and most effective round that will work on the ar15-m16 platform I’m surprised all military m16 and m4 are. It being converted to 6.5 Grendel , simple conversion and imo it’s the best performance you can achieve with out having to build a different rifle in both range , BC, accuracy, and energy especially in the 18.5” barrel ranges but all solders need a Quality LPVO to add to the weapon and your set.
Surprised nobody mentioned better bullets and powder loads for 5.56x45. Superformance from Hornady with 75gr or 77gr bullets has a definite edge that can help both external and terminal ballistics in the 5.56, with no practical recoil difference if the rifle is gassed to that load. Considering the adherence to 5.56x45, just upgrading the powder and bullets could be the way to go, and this smaller gas port would also help the rifle function smoothly on the hotter M855A1.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I have said that the 5.56 mm X 45 mm with the Black Hills 75 grains jacketed hollow point boat tail, and the Hornady 75 gr jacket hollow point boat tail Tactical Application Police rounds are the best rounds that are available in caliber 5.56 mm.
For the facts on the development of the 5.56 and the AR platform go watch "In Range TV"s video: "What would Stoner do - In his own words" The 5.56 was developed to work with a conscript army, carrying large amounts of ammunition in adverse conditions where ranges were short and snap shots or suppressive fire were the norm.
Are* war hasn’t changed. Combat takes place at less than 400m that is the rule. There are exceptions but it is the rule. Better training is required. The US military has terrible training and a laziness problem for the gun range.
Stoner also designed it to have a 20 inch barrel firing a 55 grain projectile at 3000+ fps velocity so it would tumble and violently fragment but for some reason we are using a barrel at about half that length and a heavier bullet that doesn't reach the velocity to fragment as per the design specifications and goal of the designer.
The avrage soldier isn't shooting beyond 300 meters. You have mounted or crew served weapons systems for longer engagements. Most M4s aren't issued with magnification beond x3 if any. The mounted 50 cal has a huge thermal scope.
I just listened to a couple of these guys videos and think they are a little full of it. One video they argue the opposite of what they do in this video.
The 5.56 remains a very effective cartridge. Recall, when we went to the shorter barrel M4 we gave up some velocity and range for a smaller weapon better suited for urban use. Fighting an enemy equipped with a 7.62 x 39 weapon did not present a disadvantage. The M16 with the 20 inch barrel is effective out beyond 500 meters. The longer barrel, and effective range is better suited for longer range engagements. As a military guy I want the lightest round, with least recoil, that provides effective kill ability at the intended range of the weapon. Great discussion.
For anyone wanting to know the difference between 5.56 and 7.62, ill make it simple. Do you want to wound an enemy up to 500 meters, or kill an enemy up to 400 meters? inb4 AR fanboys ree at me, I've seen what makes you cheer. Not impressed Lol.
5.56x45 is absolutely at a disadvantage to 7.62x39 within 300 meters out of 16” barrels. It lacks stopping power and penetration, and is far more effected by wind and light brush. Not to mention the guns that fire it (AUG excluded) are generally less reliable than the guns that fire 7.62x39. In conclusion, if your goal is to potentially wound someone 100 yards farther out who isn’t behind cover/concealment, it’s the better choice… otherwise it’s inferior.
@@TheDiameter Stopping power doesn't exist, and ball 7.62x39 has inferior wounding to 5 45x39. Just like the Russians figured out, flatter trajectory and lower recoil trumps the 7.62's lower deflection. There's also virtually no issues with reliability on most service weapons as long as they're being used properly (many failures of the AR were due to ammo, magazines, etc). Your comment seems like it came straight out of a 2006 episode of Future Weapons.
Great exchange of knowledge on various platforms. Learned a lot and took away the fact that various parts of our military units have different types of platform use based on the task.
I would be curious if bullet improvements on a 6 ARC is something the SEAL’s are already working on. A 6 ARC with a tungsten core bullet sounds impressive on paper.
Fully agree. I also think the case tech and optics improvements offered by the NGSW cam be applied to the 6mm ARC. Exception being: the MG 338 looks amazing. The MG68 is also cool but really relies on 6.8 implementation being broad. Otherwise it makes sense to use a different modern ultralight LMG in an intermediate platform... 6mm arc.
@@ravissary79 Integration of Sig’s steel backed cartridge could lighten the ammo closer to the 5.56 round. The integration of Sig technology would also allow a larger range of chamber pressures to play with, or more case room for a longer heavier bullet. Basically what I’m getting at is a end user would a huge spectrum of weapon configurations from one ammunition form factor. Everything from a DMR, to a breaching rifle with improved stopping power or possibly even subsonics.
@@aaron5270 yup, exactly. Military is already looking at Q's new 8.6 blackout "large platform" tactical sub/supersonic round for something like the Spear Raptor, or some new future ultralight PDW style weapon. It's going public in s few months, and promises to change the mainstream subsonic game, especially berthed supers are viable to hunt anything in North America and most of Africa, while being effective out to 300 yards on deer/elk/pigs, and 400 on 2 legged varmints.
@@beardedrancher exactly. Thays where I think giving it the hybrid case treatment can crack that nut. Trouble is, 6.5 Grendel bolts are already pushing the boundaries and going up to 80k psi doesn't help. You'd need to upgrade the platform to take a larger ar10 style bolt to reap all of the benefits.
I agree the 6 Arc just makes since. I'm a Vietnam era Air Force vet who qualifed with an M-16, fell in love with that rifle the minute I shot it. I grew up a hunter and shot 222 for groundhogs and 30-06 for deer. I liked it so much when I discharged I bought a Colt H-bar. After punching holes in dirt and paper it sat in the closet for 20 years before I sold it. Years later, after it became Americas pet firearm, I wanted one again. I won one at my gun club, decided to freefloat it, change the handguard and grip to Magpul, and put in a Geissele 2-stage trigger. After that I thought I would like to build my own from scratch. Now I have 8 Ar's of my own and have built several more for other people, I'm hooked.Of my builds 4 are 556 or 223 Wilde, two are pistol builds, 1, 9mm pistol build, 1- 350 Legend, 1- 7.62x39, and my last, which I have not shot yet a 6mm Arc, can't wait to send some rounds down range. I think the weight savings and having most everybody with the same ammo is a nobrainer, and having everyone with a rifle capable of doing a better job even if they are not up to the long distance job. But they could be trained.
A 6mm makes sense but the Grendel or ARC is too large for the mag well of an AR15 and the bolts are to weak for military use. Make a new AR15 lower that is wider and new wider mags and a stronger bolt then it would be a decent choice for military use.
5% of the Military are trigger pullers, the other 95% don't engage directly in combat, but still need a rifle when things invariably go wrong. Zero to 300 meters is still going to account for 90% of all rifle/carbine engagements. What matters is whether the cartridge can do its job within that envelope, not whether it helps you get better hits at 600 meters. Once the 5.56 can no longer reliably kill or wound within 300 meters, it will need to be replaced. Modern Body Armor that can defeat 5.56 ball that is in near universal use, will necessitate a caliber change, nothing else. SIG and the Army are 100% on the wrong track, producing weapons that "do it all", based on the last wars the U.S. engaged in, not future conflicts. All of the alternative cartridges discussed aren't going to do anything for the military that the 5.56 isn't already doing. Regarding the AR/M4 platform, most of the issues have been worked out and if you are issued a 14.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 USASOC Improved Upper with a quality optic and MK262 ammo (not the M855/A1 shit), you're probably going to be more than OK in 2022. The M16/M4 has only a few unresolved issued that are minor for big army; magazines literally freezing inside the magwell in the Arctic, gas tubes blowing-up if water is in the barrel and that's about it.
"Do it All" as always been something I've had concerns with, even before I knew as much as I do now. We can even bring this into the media. When you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody. Or in Aviation the F-35. Designed to do everything, but has a lot of shortcomings and still isn't as good as older aircraft. Can't carry anti-ship missiles. Isn't as good in CAS as F-16s or A-10 and isn't good at dogfighting like the F-22 or F-15s. Its stealth ability is lacking compared to the F-22 or even the F-117.
6.8x51mm is not considered a "do it all" cartridge by the military though, it's simply the minimum necessary for those 5% trigger pullers to successfully engage with opponents wearing body armor; the Army is very much looking at the future. It was never intended for the other 95%.
@@TheBlankJoker the F-35 can't be judged by 1960s dogfighting standards. When you can point the nose at very high AoA and lob an all aspect HOBS missile, "dogfighting" is done differently.
i personally have a 556, 6.5 Grendel and built a 6m/m arc sept. in 2020 not going to push my 556 to the side( to much ammo) 6.5 grendel came about because my neighbor was a navy seal and they were using 6.5 grendel and they loved them over the 556 6m/m arc wanted a little more from the small case and read about the contract hornady got from the military to work up a new cartridge for the AR platform. liked it and had to build one
6.5 grendel is probably the best overall. I have a ar 15 pistol in that and with a 12 inch Barrel that thing is amazing up close and the easily 600 plus yards depending on the shooters ability
Especially if sigs 2 piece cartridge was applied to 6.5grendel. Drive a 130 grn bullet 2850fps. Cavity back amuntion makes a mk118 bullet it's 118grn and reaches 2550fps out of a 18 in barrel with a normal case. Also steel cased ammo is lighter and cheaper so that's always a option. Serbia adopted it militarily. Especially with cmmg power bolt. Or like zastava ak47 bolts. It could handle the pressure
You need to look at this from the perspective of a comity of officers tasked with a cost/effect analyses of the ammunition. They do not hold effectiveness to the highest of needs when selecting any gear but rather a mix of effect, cost, and easy of procurement. If the ammo works really well but is extremely expensive which means you can't afford to get the numbers of it you need on a mass scale. This entire scenario is the main reason the military is so slow to adopt anything let alone adopt something to replace something that is still very functional and at low cost. I think we would see plastic cased ammo become the standard before you see the 5.56 get replaced given how well it works against humans in combat.
In combat, you have to think about how the enemy fights. No one stands in the middle of the open shooting, so largely what you are doing is suppressing, even as the main line infantry.
@@FEDsShotMOM yes we understand that but you want your men to stay in the fight. Sometimes firefights are won by the enemy running low on ammo. The 5.56 gives you the best capability and versatility
Fascinating discussion. I think this 6.8x51 winds up being used in specialized units, and the M4/M16/5.56 is going to serve for another 10-15 years at least. 6.8SPC would be better in a general purpose rifle, but not better enough to make the change. No effing way the 6.8x51/277 Fury winds up being the standard issue rifle.
Not according to all the press release for the new rifles it says all combat troops meaning the army’s nearly 80,000 dedicated infantry troops will all have the 6.8 with the sig spear and the m250 machine gun replacing the m4 and m249 respectively only non combat troops will keep the m4
One of the best attributes of the AR15 platform is it's modularity, a new caliber is as simple as swap the barrel and the bolt or upper and you're good to go. That's why my AR15's are 5.56/.300 Blackout/6.5 Grendel ............. long live the 5.56.
5.56 persists because it's cheaper to keep her and at the scale we're talking about, it's really, really cheap. I'm most interested in 6mm ARC as a relatively inexpensive replacement that truly increases effectiveness. It doesn't change the magazine and works neatly within the operating parameters of the guns that already use 5.56 and it offers tangible improvements in range without sacrificing terminal effect at any range or soft shooting or anything like that. Get new barrels or barreled uppers and bolts and let the quartermasters do what they do. If you're OK with the marginal expense of all new guns, which is what you're looking at when you look beyond the STANAG magazine, like the US military seems to be with the XM5, I think that opens some much more interesting doors.
5.45x39mm is round used by Russia since 1974 . China's new rifle uses neither 7.62x 39mm not the 5.45x39mm , it uses it's own specific round . 7.62x39mm is only used by 3rd world terrorists . 7.62x39mm has been obsolete for over 30 years , Americans didn't get the memo .
I think the 5.56 is the best all around cartridge ever. Although I am partial to the. 308, but for ammo carrying capacity, ease of control, and lethality at closer ranges the 5.5.56 does well
Here is the deal : Imagine that you are in the future of the " TERMINATIOR" univers And you fighting T600 model like robot whith escort of heavy armoured exoskeleton wearing troopers And your main stockpile and your standard issue is 5.56.... 556 is good for now but when you want to set up logistics for the future and not running the last second you need to beef it up e.g: 50 cal. Anti metirial rifles used as sniper rifles to hangry Afghan drug talibans Not even well build Europeans
For many Americans, myself included, we don't have 5.56 because it's a superior cartridge, we have it because of availability. If Big Army switches to 6 or 6.8 many Americans will follow suit because of that. 5.56 is sufficient for many tasks and is very comfortable and controllable. For those reasons it would be a very LONG time before it goes away. A 6mm or 6.8 that has similar qualities would be an even better cartridge overall, but Americans buy what the Army shoots. For these changes to be common in the civilian market the military almost HAS to change first.
The 5.56 is completely serviceable for civilian use. Who here is shooting at more than 300 meters? Home defense is 5 meters or less. Outside in rural areas is still 100 meters or less. And as you said cheap as heck. I love the 5.56. The military may move to 6.8 and I will wait till it gets cheap to get one but I won't be using it around the home. Way too high penetration.
The common civilian will not change to the new rifle or cartridge. The new cartridge is a proprietary 2 piece design rated at 80k psi specifically made for the Sig Spear. Sig is selling the civilian version on their website for 8,000 dollars and it's not even in the new caliber they developed. The comman shooter can't afford an 8k rifle let alone the special ammo that's very niche.
I've always loved the 6mm-7mm range bullet, but once the 277 is available it will be crazy expensive so I know I'll hang on to 556, tho I'd like a 6.8 AR 😁
75 grain 5.56 & 77 grain .223 are nothing to sneeze at. I am not a fan of 62 grain green tip, because it often lacks accuracy even in dead calm wind conditions. I run 6.5 Grendel and I later went to 6.8Spc, plus I used 300 Hush or Blackout when it was still a wildcat. I am running a 338 H&H Magnum parent case 6.5mm wildcat now in an AR10. It's got some legs, so it can reach out a long ways and it kicks pretty hard too, (on both ends).
If we were looking at a specific rifle setup with fixed criteria (barrel length, muzzle device, suppressor, optic, etc.) it would be much easier to select a cartridge. For example, a .300 Blk does better out of short barrels (potential velocity), but it doesn’t do very well at/past intermediate range even with a longer barrel. .244 Valkyrie might have great potential range out a longer barrel, but out of a short barrel, you’ll get much more flash/blast. Then what about the recoil of the weapon system, which detracts from fast follow up shots. 5.56 isn’t great when measured by any of these criteria, but it does good enough; while being plentiful and inexpensive.
it dose terible. how many wars do we need to lose for you to realize that. what are you going to do when they enemy has armor that is prof against 556.
@@ashlevrier there are already 5.56 offerings that are very effective against modern armor. Look up M855A1. There will always be newer designs and technologies. The question is, when have we advanced enough to abandon current tech for newer tech?
.300 Blk with a 10.5" barrel is what I'm building now because I intend on going to my bro's farm in S.Texas and hunt hogs. Max range there is 100-150 yds mostly because of the trees and brush. I'd have a .556 just for plinking. I have several .22's for that though.
6mm arc is a outstanding compromise though. Same energy than 300 blk out of a 11 inch barrel, more range than anything but .224 valkyrie out of an ar-15. If you want a wonder cartridge, that's it right there. For anything like the ar10 cartridges to be viable we will need to rethink the recoil reduction system. Reducing the sharpness is not enough.
I want something with light recoil, 1000 yard effectiveness, sub moa accuracy, ability to defeat modern body armor, doesn’t lose magazine capacity, inexpensive and readily available. I want all of this without making any sacrifices.
@Chano Leyva That's the whole point of the comment. The Army has decided they need a 1,000 yard cartridge in the hands of every soldier, but those soldiers are only trained to shoot out to 300 yards, and they're no rockstars even at that distance.
5.56 is good for engagements within 300 yards that is standard engagement distance. The NGSW look like they are gonna equip the US army to fight in Afghanistan.
Two factors that should be addressed: 1) A larger caliber reduces the amount of ammo troops can carry by one third. Accuracy becomes important with an underpowered round, like the 5.56, but it becomes more important when you carry fewer rounds. 2) A larger caliber rifle will be substantially heavier, like the spearhead. Does transitioning to a heavier rifle make sense at a time when physical fitness standards are being effectively lowered?
I'd be interested in a follow-up now that Sig and that oddball cartridge is the official NGSW. I agree that there are better alternatives that are currently available, but until the military does away with 5.56 it's going to be a mainstay. Honestly, part of the problem is how long its been around and how much has been stockpiled both by civilian and other NATO countries. 5.56 isn't really the best choice for anything, but it's not going away any time soon.
The 6.8x51 is spec’s to be operating at 80K psi chamber pressures. This makes me wonder how much the service life of the parts will be affected. Will parts need to be replaced at more frequent intervals? Will the rifles have to be built heavier to hold up to the operating pressures? What about barrel life?
It really looks like the barrels are expected to be expendable and the question on procurement's mind isn't whether or not 6.8 SIG will perform better than .308, but whether or not the barrels are worth the performance.
@@agentoranj5858 right. Ballistically, its doing awesome even out of a 16” barrel. But what is the cost (mechanically and monetarily), and is it worth the benefit.
The 5.56 has always been less than ideal. But, it appears, based on the fact that it is still here, after 60 years of service, that it is a combination that almost everyone can shoot very well and very quickly. In addition, you can definitely carry a lot more ammo than larger more capable cartridges like the 6.5 CM. I do think they should go back to the 20 inch barrels. I personally loved the rifle that I was issued. It was not a sniper rifle, but it was plenty accurate for its intended purpose. It was very light and the ergonomics are great. I doubt it’s going to change anytime soon.
I was a cop in Puerto Rico and Washington DC. Never in my life I've seen a person shot with a 22LR. I saw one shot with a 45 ACP, one with a 380 ACP, one with a 38 special, and so many with a 9mm that I simply lost count. I want to know where is this place in the US where everybody is being killed with a 22lr at such alarming rate that it throws out the statistics of deaths by 9mm
When you factor in all deaths and injuries caused by various cartridges, just about every year, far more are killed or injured in the US by .22 LR than any other cartridge. The data's out there, but it takes some digging to come up with it. John Lott has made reference to it in his earlier studies.
Puerto Rico and Washington DC when you list two places that have been historically anti-gun you cannot expect people there to have common plinking rounds to everyone else uses as a small kid on up to the elderly senior years. People and anti-gun areas are going to be using guns and they're going to be using guns to commit crimes and murders so they're definitely not going to be seeking out 22 long rifle they're going to be using more traditional full-size combat caliber pistols. Puerto Rico and Washington DC are not inundated with recreational shooters to have recreational firearms and recreational ammo laying all over the place like the rest of the country. Those are two of the worst locational examples one could ever find.
5.56 is still relatively good it's home is close engagements where distance is close and troops are not experienced in recoil control. We need a space age dmr that can perform at longer range and pierce todays armor up close. Please note Dmr is not have to have full auto.
My thought process is that if we're obsessed with chopping barrels down and suppressing them with the higher likelihood of CQB, why don't we just go 300blk if we're looking to move to something different?
It's logistics. 5.56 is fully integrated into our society. Just think of the sheer amount of 5.56 ar15 mags, bolts, ammo, reloading supplies, optics designed for 5.56, and all the police departments that use them. Probably the single best cartridge to stock as an American.
Switch to 6mm arc, have hornady team up with true velocity polymer casings to get weight of ammo down further so you can offset the little extra weight incurred by 6mm arc. There should be no difference in training between the 2 calibers.
I say combined 6.5grendel with sig 2 piece technology. And go without much longer bullets than stanag mags allows. And bring back WW2 M2 style steel ammo
I think most hunters like myself will be happy to buy a 6mmARC upper for hunting as soon as ammo and reloading equipment are available. To facilitate this move to 6mmARC your channel should consider doing videos on testing 6mmARC uppers and constructing accurate 6mmARC uppers.
Gotta get the rest of the states to allow semi-autos for all hunting. PA has been talking about it for several years. All they gave us so far is Sunday hunting. I’ve somewhat shelved my 6.5 Grendel hunting project AR because I can’t use it yet.
I have real good results with my 16" 300blk 200 yards and under with a 150gr I knocked the shit out of two of them and both fell right there I was impressed but if I was going longer than 200 is what I want to check out the 6ARC for
Vulcan is a rifle that can be switched from 5.56x45 to 5.45x39 to 7.62x39, pretty easily, it is mostly polymer, but very durable and light. I am from Ukraine by the way, and that rifle is based on Steyr AUG A2
we have currently 2 cartridges, 308 and 556, during Vietnam when they switch to 556 it fitted to cqb, but now days with more open field combat like in the mountains of Afghanistan or the wide open deserts there or even during desert storm and the iraq war itself even the British realised that they lack in effective range with the 556, so what we need is something in between 556 and 308
Like 6.5grendel. Better than arc up close. Has better bc long range bullets than 6arc. And has a larger bullet great for AP application. Steel cased ammo could be made to be cheaper. Sigs 2 piece cartridge in ,6.5grendel would be essentially 6.5creedmore power wise. Serbia adopted it. Cmmg power bolt ar15s can handle the extra power. As can any ak47. 6.5grendel is popular in Europe and Russia unlike 6.8 or 6arc. And 6.5 case taper helps extraction. And if steel or 2 piece cases were used it would be light.
Like 6.5grendel. Better than arc up close. Has better bc long range bullets than 6arc. And has a larger bullet great for AP application. Steel cased ammo could be made to be cheaper. Sigs 2 piece cartridge in ,6.5grendel would be essentially 6.5creedmore power wise. Serbia adopted it. Cmmg power bolt ar15s can handle the extra power.
I was Cavalry so we were on M1s and Bradley's in my time of service the M16 was what you carried to chow. I agree the average trooper does not usually know about calibers, but if they saw a hopped up Hoggie dropped with one round of 6ARC vs a mag on 5.56 then they will be educated quickly. 6 ARC just drops the pants on 5.56 all the way around and the logistics are really not as difficult as they are made out to be to changing. It will be slow to happen though too much red tape.
I wonder how long it will take after Afghanistan to remember that fighting past 1/4 mile is the exception, not the rule? I'm actually intrigued by the 6 ARC (though I have zero experience with it) but I think the lighter ammo and acceptable performance out to 400m make the 5.56 a very viable round for most kinds of infantry fighting.
In the modern world your enemy has bodyarmor, making 5,56x45 ineffective. In the next war in Europe (may it never happen but it´s not looking good..) there are dense woods, cities (walls) and enemies with bodyarmor. Under those circumstances 5,56x45 mm is totally inadequate. (I understand that such a war will not be decided by rifles but you still need to be able to take an enemy down with your personal weapon)
@@sgthl That doesn't make 5.56 ineffective. Dense woods means that rifle fighting occurs at closer ranges. You're actually at a disadvantage with a heavier caliber. You claim 5.56x45 is inadequate but you miss the point that body armor isn't an invulnerability cheat that negates enemy bullets, it's a second chance at living after you get hit. Casualties in war have shifted the dead to wounded because nowadays there's proper combat medicine, and you can survive even if you get a limb blown off. However, upper chest hits are much harder to deal with in the field. That's what plates do. Shift dead to wounded. And you have to consider how it feels in the receiving end. Imagine being forced to carry plates that you know will not save your life. You're going to prefer to just go with soft armor for fragmentation and skip the useless weight.
@@sgthl I dunno mang; American/NATO troops have shot a lot of enemy combatants since the introduction of 5.56 that haven't been wearing armor. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it really hasn't either.
Make the standard 5.56 round in country some variation of a 69-77 grain projectile. When the Marine Corps switched from the M16A1 to the A2, rifle scores across the board went up a few points. When they switched from 55 grain to 62 grain, the scores went up again. Though the M855 62 gr projectile is inferior in many ways to 55gr M193, the weight and better ballistics of the 62 grain allowed it to carry better at the 500 yard line. The shooters at Camp Perry every year take the AR-15 out to 600 yards and shoot MOA accuracy using mainly 75-80 grain OTM projectiles. Many loads are loaded to an OAL that will not fit in a standard magazine, but the point still stands. There is definitely more potential in the 5.56 and it would be far more logistically feasible to upgrade the projectile than the entire cartridge.
I carried 5.56 my whole military career... I loved my rifle and was confident in what I could do with it! The only thing I didn't like about it was it's lack of power against vehicles! I often wished I had my terps 7.62 when vehicles approached our position!
In my opinion the 6mm arc or even the 6.8 would finalize the debate once and for all of what is the perfect military round.I am not a military guy but I've always thought the 5.56 was a wee bit small.I also agree that if the military adapted either round then the public would be right behind them!!!
I have always thought that the 6mm rem. was the perfect military round. 100 gr. projectile @ 3,000fps. Best of both worlds. The problem has always been the military has to re-invent the wheel Every time !
The sheer amount of this caliber that has been stockpiled by Americans over the last decade must be mind boggling. When half the country is sitting on thousands of rounds, this caliber is here to stay for a long, long time.
Millions. Likely billions.
@@devs9979 Imagine all that surplus munitions. We might have another 7.62 type of surplus munitions in the future if the US finally changes its standard munitions.
Well look at 30-06.
Its been usurped by 308 or 300 win and is no longer a military cartridge, and yet it is still extremely popular.
the MIC doesnt care how many of the old stuff you have stockpiled, no money in that for them. They need to start a proxy war with countries that burn threw 5.56 the way Ukrops are burning through soviet ammo
Not thousands. Just one civilian or one fireteam in the military has thousands. Billions is more correct. Civilians have billions and the military has billions
5.56 comes up short but not enough shorter to make a difference. The benefits of a lightweight rifle, ease of training, soft recoil and the ability to carry a lot of ammo trumps the slight improvement in ballistics that you get from another cartridge.
6arc is superior, just not at the current price & available options.
@@RichardCranium321 How is it superior when the magazines hold less rounds, and it doesn't use common tooling, parts and accessories? It's only "superior" when you're sitting at a bench at the gun range. 6mm arc is not an improvement to the concept of a battle rifle unless all the military infantry become snipers.
If 5.56 is not enough for extended ranges the designated marksman takes over with the 7.62. It does require some math and a bit of common sense on the modern battlefield, but it’s not rocket science!
@Anne Frank you can still carry just as much 6arc as 5.56, not much overall weight difference per pill if you using something like Black hills 77gr otm, IMI 77gr razorcore, any Mk262 equivalent, the newer speer gold dot 223 or even some of the 70gr solid copper offerings from Barnes, Sierra, Norma - and if they seriously worried about the recoil of a round that's only .04 larger diameter then trigger time & repetition will alleviate any concerns.
@@RichardCranium3216mm arc 25 round magazines compared to standard 30 rounds is not an improvement.
I own an ar in 5.56 for the same reason I own a 9mm glock. Both are great platforms with kinda okay, kinda shitty cartridges but at the end of the day if shit goes down there is a massive probability that the people next to me are gonna have the exact same shit as me 🤷🏻♂️
And the person you take out, And a crashed car you found and a crashed blackhawk you found and the local police station armory.
Then also at the end of the day noone want to be hit with a rock at 2800+ fps too
Take care friend!
Not just that but you can actually buy ammunition for it in reasonable quantities without having to bankrupt yourself. I love my 10mm, 6.5 grendel, and .300 blackout but those are all near $1 per round.
Imo if shit hits the fan, 😢The 5.56 is gonna run out very fast and I think most of the people capable of reloading ammo are going to choose 308 and 45. Edit: and 12 gauge
@@messagefamilystyled1101 good point.
Same. I just "switched" to the AR 5.56 as my primary platform in 2019 for compatibility reasons in case the need arises for citizens homeland defense. I still prefer 7.62x39 and .30-06 for a lot of applications, but I've learned a ton about 5.56 since getting some time and training on the platform and I've come to really respect both the cartridge and especially the 20" AR-15. I've come to find that 5.56 fills it's niche REALLY well when it's being implemented properly.
This guy shoots 80,000 rounds a year and if, and I mean if, I can find primers, they are priced at 15 cents each.
This guy lives in a different world from the rest of us.
@@mendelevium3761 Its gotten the same as NuFancy.. I just got tired of watching kids in a candy store play with shit that I will never afford .. nor can get my hands on.. and I cringe when I see these gun influencers just cum ammo like its water..... a lot of people are hurting right now and are in bad straights and this kinda shit is sorta insulting to the gun masses... but hey , its America, he can do what he wants at the end of the day
@@mendelevium3761 just because he shoots for much less cost than we can doesn't mean his information is inaccurate. If he was reviewing specific brands of ammo and Federal constantly came up on top THEN I would question his motives. As it is, the information is mostly on weapons and platforms and specific bullet types, not brands.
@@jonathanstancil8544 It means he is in a different situation than the rest of us.
@Knight Recon ill take free every time too.
Get off your couch and go make your own videos, get sponsored and get free ammo, bet you wont complain anymore. Its called capatilism, he benefits by speaking on calibers and brands, and the company benefits by selling more and producing more ammo which increases availbility..
Are you sure you arent a closet communist?
Folks, 9mm NATO is the world standard pistol cartridge and it’s over 100 years old.
Law enforcement and civilian personal defense will keep the 5.56mm carbine relevant for the next 50+ years l.
Only if FJB is rid of office & all his communists style legislations are redacted.
Same can be said for 12 gauge shotguns they've been around since 1912 and yet they're still one of the most used not only shotgun calibers, but general gun calibers in the world by civilians, law enforcement and military. The 12g is so well used it's seen every war from world War 1 to current date.
9mm was chosen over larger/more effective chamberings because the germans and soviets primarily used their pistols for shooting bound men on their knees in the back of the head.
A century of effort has increased its effectiveness... but is it really the best?
Is it what you would want to have in a gunfight given any other option?
Exactly, the performance of 5.56 alone is enough to ensure it’s not going to be replaced
@@AbolishTheATF aaaa no for the simple but very effective reason that if that was really the case then why isn't every military using full auto 9mm because if we want to go cheap and supposedly effective 9mm is the uncontested winner by literally every measurable aspect in turns of killing potential.
It persists because ammo is plentiful and cheap.
If I could get 6mm ARC for even close in price and availability I'd jump at it.
Totally agree! Already some parts of special forces are using the 6mm arc! Closer to too the 5.56
Imagine if you will: a 6.8 SPC diameter (polymer?) case with a 6mm bullet, operating at a high enough pressure to get the same muzzle velocity as the fatter 6mm ARC cartridge. Now _that_ might make a good candidate for displacing 5.56x45mm.
This and reliable ARC magazine.
Ammo cheap ?
6.5 Grendel is a poor man's 6arc. The Grendel does need a curved magazine but the 12.5 I built has been very reliable even shooting steel cased wolf (currently $.72 a round). Ballistically a 123 grain bullet out of a 12" 6.5 Grendel has the same energy on target as a 123grain bullet out of a 16" 7.62X39 AK. 12" Grendel is my favorite gun ammo combo right now.
When I went to USMC Boot Camp in the early 70's we trained with M-14's Damn those things were heavy. Then we were issued M16's once we were in the fleet. I still love the .308, but my AR's are 5.56. 5.56 isnt going away in my lifetime.
Semper Fi brother...Always.
@@kenbugher1590 To both of you TEFFENHUNDEN!
You sound just like the guys screaming 30-06 was never going anywhere
💯💯💯🎯🎯🎯
@@bigredtruck42 Replacing 5.56mm with a big old uber magnum would've been like replacing .30-06 with .45-70
I was also a builder / defender in a combat engineer unit. We did MOUT training, lots of convoys, and did see urban warfare on our missions in OIF stabilizing Ramadi in 2005. I served with 0311 / 11Bs in Ramadi at various outposts and they had mainly M4s / M16 A4s for patrols but most of firefights they got into they used belt feds 249/240Bs to engage Iraqi insurgents from armored vehicles in convoys. I did see some of the 2ID guys with M14 DMRs and ran into some 2nd MEF snipers with M40 rifles, but everyone pretty much had M4 / M16s. I would say the most important thing was not the 5.56 caliber, but the fact the Army and Marines were now using Aimpoint / ACOG optics, but this was 17 years ago.
Excellent observation brother
Seems like yesterday doesn't it?
Just like 9mm has been around forever, .223/5.56 will be as well. There are way too many 5.56 rifles in circulation to warrant the need to stop mass production of that caliber. Maybe years down the road another caliber will become more popular, but for now don't expect anything to change.
another thing to factor in is how much these guns and ammo costs..im not going to invest in a weapons system where the rifle is 2 grand a unit or ammo is 1.60 a round
6.5grendel is the 1 round to rule them all. Power of 7.62x39. 90-135grn projectiles range of 308.
@@michaelcraig58 mass production is what brings ammo price down. Any ammo type can be cheap if it's made in mass.
@@justinlance4174 Doesn't play well with STANAG mags.
@@justinlance4174 your right..but the ammo companys are only going to make what the demand is for..if the guns are to expensive for most people to buy the demand will be low and they will only makea small percentage..
If I could get 5.56 in 77gr mk262 or 62gr M855a1 for a decent price, I'd never need anything else.
As it stands, I rock a 20 inch A4 clone for the longer barrel (as I live in the country and need the extra velocity) and a 10.5 300blk for close/urban.
I really do prefer 77 grain 5.56 or .223. I even have some 69 gr stuff squirreled away. I use everything else for going to the range as it's cheaper.
@CLOV4R713 yes, another reason I got the 20.
I'm still learning about the basics of ballistics, but, doesn't going to a heavier grain 5.56 require a higher twist rate, thus a barrel dedicated to such, to gain any advantage at distance?
I myself keep all my battle mags and go mags with mk262. Yes I paid big $ for them. Now I got a great ammo guy who builds my training ammo to the mk262 specs. I consider myself lucky to have this guy. It performs better out of all barrel lengths. I use a 14.5 and 11.85 with them. I couldn't see using a 55gr or even 62gr. Everything from the BC to the accuracy is better. Now I do have a personal love for 300blkout and use it out of a 9in and 16in bolt gun for hunting and have hit animals out to 300 yards and dropped them. The myth 300blkout is for only short distances is not even close to true. Watch Mr.G&G 300blkout break down. Anyway good point sir and I agree with you.
@@empireoflizards yes, but the 1:7 that is standard twist is actually too much (kinda) for regular 62 grain. It's better for 69-77.
5.56 does come up short in a lot of ways. But I think what it has going for it is that it doesn't score low in any category. There are several calibers that are better for specific task. But if you had to pick one to use in ANY situation, the 5.56 is basically the multitool of the firearm world.
Scores pretty low in range compared to other rifle calibers. 6mm cartridges are typically much more efficient, they just weren't quite there when 5.56 started to gain momentum and never lost it.
It works, but there are better alternatives. There is no technical reason to keep using it, only political and historical.
I would say that typical combat is 200 yards and less, well within the effective range of the 5.56. WWII battles rarely needed 500 yard shots, unless you were a sniper. The argument for the Garand was size of the bullet hitting the target, not the effective range. Range in most combat situations is not a valid argument against the 5.56. Energy at the target, that's another story for debate.
@@nextlifeonearth recoil in full auto. Magazine capacity. Weight. These are all technical reasons that favor the 5.56.
@Mark Harwood in high intensity combat (like WW2 and what we see now in Ukraine), small arms are not the major casualty producing weapons. High explosives are (in the way of artillery, armor, and air support). Even in Ukraine, we're seeing infantry engagements still occurring inside 200m. And the 5.45mm is still effective in these ranges.
@@armynurseboy HOOAH! King of Battle!! I don't think a comparison between a 5.56 mm round and a 155 mm round is fair! Just kidding. Well not really, but that was not intended to be a smart aleck comment! However, the discussion is about small arms ammo.
The AR platform in 5.56 is loved because its stupid easy to learn and shoot... when you are talking about entire armies, that is preferred over some better balistics
Full auto is pointless for a rifle man unless it’s an AK
Yes, two different 'philosophies of use ' going on there.
5.56x45mm is a great round. Lightweight, controllable. Great attributes for a soldier. Professional and casual.
it was never wanted by any other NATO country ...... all were coerced into it ,despite many wanting something intermediate to the 5.56 and 7.62
@@Evilroco all the countries that have put money into ammo infrastructure in their countries to produce 556 would have to change to another round even if it is better you talking about Millions of dollars that some countries don't have and won't have for at least 10-15 years down the road if they (NATO) completely switch over.
It works period I would rather have 556 with good air support then I would, making sure I have a good rifle round I don't care about that as long as I have air support and artillery to back me up that's where the money needs to go not changing calibers to get a slight advantage in a firefight when having air and artillery support is far more important.
I think with each advancement in small arms ammunition, we are seeing the effects of diminished returns. Yes there are superior calibers ballistically and logistically but for the civilian market, cost is of even greater importance. How many dudes are willing to move to a new platform or chamber with a 200% increase in Ammo cost but only a 19%-23% increase in ballistic performance? Considering in civillian life, justifying lethal force against an aggressor gets harder the further you move away from 55 yards.
Well if you look at the ARC, compared to the 5.56, its not a 20% gain, its closer to 80-100% gain in effective range and terminal ballistics closer to .308 at 600-1000 meters, purely based on the data 5.56 should be obsolete for military applications, but you hit the nail on the head as far as the civilian market, what would motivate an individual to make the switch based on the ballistics? I'd love to hear the hypothetical scenario for self defense beyond 150 yards. The FBI data says 7 yards is the average self defense situation, with Rittenhouse all three engagements were within 15 yards I believe.
yeah like the "dump your .308 and get a 6.5 " Unless you are competing in a shooting sport or in hot combat where that little bit makes all the difference, your "outdated" cartridge is still going to be just as lethal today as it was yesterday. If it works, and you can shoot it accurately you don't need to discard it for the next best thing. until there is some MAJOR change. bolt gun vs semi, 8rd enbloc vs higher capacity detachables, irons only vs modern optics ect...
Add availability of a given ammunition caliber and the reasons for a civilian to stick to 5.56 increase significantly.
It’s a lot more than 20%. You’re talking 1000m effective range with the 6.8x51. That’s on a single target. Compare that to 500m with the m4. 560 if you have the m16 still. Our guys in the field are finding that it takes 5-6 rounds to bring a man down right now. Sure 1 shot can kill a man if it’s placed right. But when your engagements are at 300-500+ yards the 5.56 just doesn’t carry that well at those distances. 6.8 or an ARC or 6.5 etc would have more power and more accuracy at those distances. Even with the trade off of weight and recoil it’s gonna be more like an 80% increase in performance.
@@robertdean7778 You put the bullet in the right place the target is dead. At other locations the wound may not put the target down as as fast.
The Vietnam Vets I have spoken with came up against far more SKS rifles , than AK's . .556 was designed to be utilized in a 20 inch barreled AR . Lately it seems as if shorter barrels are being used more and more and there is an obvious down side to this. As for me , I am partial to an 18 or 20 inch barreled rifle with 1 in 8 twist along with heavier bullet weights for stability.
So basically, make Bullpups, increase barrel length (and therefore velocity), and profit?
Anything under 18" of a barrel in 556 is really under performing the round. Many people seem fine with this somehow then complain it takes a bunch of hits to be effective. lol
@@mattevans4377 hexagonal rifling too?
@@geronimo5537 for the individual it’s not an issue as you can pick ammunition optimized for the shorter barrel, but yes it’s absolutely dump to be putting ammunition made for a 20” barrel through a 12” barrel and complaining about its performance.
I will always have a 20" ar as my "GTWR".
Keep 5.56 for close range. 6.8x51 and other full size cartridges are great for longer range. They are different tools. Keep them both available and use the 6.8 for DMRs.
Well said. I recently injected myself into an argument about the 9mm and .45 acp . My position is both are good 👍. There really isn't in my opinion that there is a go everywhere do everything cartridge.
The 77 grain at 5.56 pressures was the refresh that the 5.56 needed to make it a bit more relevant. The 14.5" barrel on the M4 is what makes it irrelevant. Even extending the barrel to 16" and utilizing heavier bullets brings the 5.56 into the realm of 21st century reality. In Canada, we use the 20.5" C7 and the 16" C8. I believe these barrel lengths keep the 5.56 more relevant. Now, in the northern part of the country where I live, distance and range mean very little. Heavily wooded forests and extreme cold and large animals are the norm. Here, 7.62x39 makes more sense than any boutique cartridge. Many guys rushed out and bought 6.5 Creed's and have since dusted off their old .30-06's once again. Let's face it, is the modern battlefield a 1000 meter battlefield or is it an under 500 meter battlefield. If the battlefield remains close, then the 5.56 will fit the bill.
There is a gain of around 70 FPS going from a 14.5 to 16" barrel, it is irrelevant in combat so your point that a 1.5" barrel decrease somehow makes the M4 irrelevant is bogus.
Nobody is using 30-06 in ELR or PRS.
I think 6.5 creed gained a odd amount of popularity as it was intended as a precision match round… and it does that very well. It wasn’t intended to replace hunting or war cartridges. Those who bought it for that were buying into it for the wrong reasons.
@@nsboost I do I love 3006. And u can actually find armor piercing ammo for 30 06. Unlike 556 and 308. Or 6.5creed.
@@djl5634 30-06 is a beast of a round no doubt! It will always be iconic and useful.
I just find the crowd that hates the 6.5 creedmoor… and that they always compare it to rounds with completely different use cases. The 6.5 was meant for precision match shooting. Much like the 6mm creed. They weren’t meant to compete with or replace .223/308/30-06/etc etc (though it would be a great upgrade from to .223 if the ammo wasn’t so god awful expensive).
@@djl5634 I'd rather use the ap projectiles in a 300 winmag or 300 prc if not a semi auto 308 though
For the civilian it comes down to DOLLARS and CENTS.
.223 at .50 cents a round
or
6.8 SPC at $1.70 a round
And the point is that whatever the military adopts the cost will drop
The government does not care about that. At ALL.
@@azazelRising72 correct. And it isn't the purpose of their conversation either. I would LOVE for them to switch to 6ARC. It would give me a reason to buy one since the prices would drop dramatically just due to sheer volume. I jumped on the Grendel bandwagon too early. As great a round as it is (Baby Creedmoor) the magazines are a pain in the ass to work with. Even the Amend2 Grendel specific magazines don't drop free because of the way the round bulges the top of the magazines.
Or the 6.8 NGSW at $2 per round or higher.
It is why I went with an AR-15 using 7.62 x 39.
Whatever changes are made to military ammo, change the weight of the Soldier's load. Bigger, heavier cartridge equals heavier load. You end up with diminishing returns. If military planners think that Afghanistan is going to be the norm - they should change the rifle round. If not, keep the 5.56. If the enemy is exchanging rounds with you at 800m - call in artillery on their position.
yea exaclty we still dont need a bigger round or to get rid of the 5.56 where just in a super rare senario where our guns are slightly out of range its not worth putting a new gun and heavier ammo on soilders just to get a extra 100m range on the battlefield that outside of afgan will never be used
Actually, a light cartridge doesn't equal a lighter load. As the old saying goes, "Military intelligence is an oxymoron." Make cartridges lighter, the military mindset is, "Cool! Now we can carry more ammo, and still load the soldier down like a burro, and still destroy his spine inside a few years."
@@DuaneThomas1963 it's about options a improvement is a improvement
💯💯🎯🎯🎯🎯
@@DuaneThomas1963found the "actually" guy
The 5.56 was adopted for its weight. We carried 210 rds as a basic load, which weighed 7 lbs. most of us carried 300+ rds on patrol.
I always wondered, what do you do with all those rounds?
@@towakin7718 you can always have too much ammo to carry but you can never carry enough ammo.
@@VT-mw2zb Unless you get ambushed and just supplied a Guerilla squad for a lifetime.
Seriously, 210 rounds per person or even more, what do you want to do with that, aside from special ammo intensive missions?
I'm asking a serious question here. Seems to me like a bad idea which everyone just repeats without questioning. As I understand the modern doctrine is pretty much back to something akin to "shoot to kill" not "spray and pray".
@@towakin7718 always better to have more than you need than not enough when you needed it.
@@xsu-is7vq So because of stupid one liners you settle on a caliber that's made for 70s tech with iron sights instead of sub moa weapons with modern optics.
How much water do you carry, may I ask? Don't answer, it's a rethorical question.
This however, is not a rethorical question: "I always wondered, what do you do with all those rounds?"
5.56 in the M4A1 will continue to have a place for support troops. And in that roll, it is perfect. It would in some respect take the place of the M1 Carbine from WWII. I can see I return to a bifurcation of arms where front line troops have 6.8x51mm NGSW and rear-echelon troops have 5.56x45mm M4A1s.
I have a 6 arc rifle and I love it, but I almost wish a rifle was designed from the ground up for it. My 16in barrel I would say performs on par or close to a 20in .243, based on velocities and bullet weights. The round is extremely efficient. However the bolt face is still a potential point of failure, an easily replaceable one, but the cartridge is limited to much lower pressures out of an ar-15 platform because of it.
I would like to see SIG take the MCX line and develop a rifle and bolt face around the 6 arc using the 6.8X51 ammunition tech they developed. That would be a screamer, with much lower recoil capable of the high pressure performance, but lighter in weight and recoil.
Geissele introduced some 6 ARC AR's at SHOT Show 2022 that they say were designed from the ground up for the round. They're also coming out with a new magazine designed specifically for 6 ARC. DEVGRU has been using 6 ARC for some time now and I believe they're getting good results using 24-round E-Lander 6.5 Grendel mags for 6 ARC.
@@vgt I saw that as well, but I am not seeing anywhere where geissele mentioned they redesigned the ar-15 bolt or the mag well to fix deficiencies in the system. It sounds like a purpose built ar-15 for the round, but not an engineered rifle built for it. The bolt face and the mag issues being solved via a new rifle would make it a truly great alternative to the ar-15 in 5.56.
no way 243 and 6 arc are close i wouldn't call a 200 fps difference close
@@yo9758 I would when you account for bullet weight and barrel length needed to achieve max performance from a .243 win. In a bolt gun I have seen hand loaders get them neck and neck with the same bullets.
Your on point. If they would have pumped more out during c19 we would be years ahead on 6arc now. But we were scared lol
During the 1960's there were some radical weapons intended to replace the M-14 rifle. The M16 was a temporary expedient. Reminds me--as late as 2009 I was using "temporary" buildings left over from the First World War, thrown up during 1917, in multiple states! The M16 has been a temporary expedient for almost sixty years now.
Yea like he said if they had used the Brit .270 they would still be using it !!!
60 years now in 2024
The Garand was originally designed to utilize the .276 Pederson in a 10 round enblock clip. This Cartridge predates the .276 British by over a decade for sure. This cartridge was 6.8 x 51 of lower pressure than the 3006 and required lubed ammunition which could be problematic.
we've been effectively using .223 handloads in 18" & 20" barrels out to 500yds. for years to deal w/ coyotes. Any barrel length shorter than 18" reduces the effective range / BC on that caliber. 6.8 SPC or 6.8 Rem is an excellent cartridge , but so is Wilson Combat's 300 HAM'R problem both are in short supply & therefore expensive in comparison.
Thank you. Yes I even shoot coyotes with 22 hornet at closer range. I thought is was ridiculous him saying that. People including professionals use .223 for hog hunting and even deer hunting in some states. But yes barrel length helps.
An 11.5" will put almost 400 lbs of energy on a target at 500 yds with 5.56mm TMK with only about 30" of drop.
A plain old run of the mill 55gr .223 soft point is perfectly fine for deer.
I think the military has an unhealthy fetish with their short barreled rifles. Anything shorter than 16 inches is a joke and a liability.
An ar with an 18” barrel is still a very compact and handy rifle
5.56 is great, you just need that 18-20" of barrel. All this 16" carbine stuff gives up so much in velocity that no one seems to talk about. 300-400 yards is no problem with a proper length M16 and ball ammo.
That rifle is way too long though
@@gifthorse3675 I don't find it too long. It's far smoother shooting as a rifle, than as a carbine. If you need it shorter, just put the butt stock over your shoulder.
@@life_of_riley88 The concussion from the 8” rifles he has, probably skewed his thinking. Give him a break
You really don't lose that much going from a 20" gun to a 16" gun in my experience. Like 100-150 fps with a lot of loads, sometimes less sometimes more. After that it does start to become more noticeable though. I have absolutely no problem with 16" guns but I'm a real sucker for mk12 type guns
@@AnarchAngel1 A 18 or 20” barrel shooting a 77g MK262, is plenty efficient. The combination of the army using a 14.5” barrel with conjunction of the m855/m193 was vastly reduced, to the combination I mentioned above
The strengths you're mentioning of the other rounds just don't weigh heavily in the combat environments the military has operated in for the last few decades. The typical infantryman doesn't need to hit prairie dog size targets, at long range, in high wind. While 5.56 may not be the greatest round ever made, it's been very effective for what we need it to do and there's no pressing need to change it.
I am surprised to see this statement and the likes on it, from what I have seen of combat footage and listening to the stories from soldiers over in the middle east, range was absolutely an issue, think about the geography and the photos you have seen, treeless mountain ranges, small towns out in the open with little more than dust and dirt for hundreds of yards in most directions, just a couple weeks ago, I was listening to a podcast where the soldier was joking about the enemy regularly setting up 450-500 meters outside the towns the soldiers had moved into, and they would lob bullets at them knowing that soldiers really couldn't do anything more than lob bullets back. He said it went on long enough that finally each squad, unit, or what ever they were called was designated one AR10, and this soldier was laughing at how the poor guy with the AR10 was getting run all over the place because essentially the rest of the unit was spread out as spotters, so the guy with the AR10 had 8-10 team mates hollering for him to come to their positions at different times in different spots.
@@EssPhour There is no one size fits all solution. Vietnam started with battle rifles and then transferred to intermediate rounds. the m14 had alot of problems in that environment, but ranges were generally shorter and 7.62 nato was overkill. Volume of fire, and reduced recoil was preferred for that type of fighting. later on in the mid east they started digging out mothballed m14s and attempted modernizing them as EBRs. Now you've got the scarH filing that role and doing a much better job. just like the army's failed universal camo pattern. any attempt at going with a one size fits all solution, your going to have to make compromises. sometime that comes back to bite you hard. It's really better to have multiple options, that can be adapted to a given situation, but then you run into logistics issues. You have more ammunition, magazine, weapon, and part varieties that have to be handled, transported ect, also costs of fielding more than one weapons system. What is the maximum number of each weapon you can produce per year, and will producing both hinder the production of either, and lead to shortages of weapons. you have to have armory support for both. You also have to take into account training on the various weapons platforms. So there will always be a compromise, because at the end of the day the logistics is going to be the deciding factor. the Germans did not understand this during ww2. they invented a lot of amazing weapons, but many of them didn't get produced in quantity enough to make a serious impact, or only started to reach serious production too late in the war. Also the U.S. tends to enter most conflicts with outdated tactics of the previous war. because you don't really know what kind of war you'll be fighting until your in it. The one thing that might force change, is increased use of body armor. that is a case where 5.56, and even most .30 cal cartridge's really don't cut the mustard.
@@EssPhour That did happen, typically after accurate return fire they retreated. The thing is 99% of the time all you're doing is carrying it and ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.
@@EssPhour That wasn't my experience in Iraq. Yes there were areas of wide open space, but the enemy never engaged us from out in the open. They were typically hidden within the cities so they could fire and retreat and disappear into the the civilian population, meaning we had to close distance to engage them anyway. We also had sniper platoons that could reach out and touch somebody at long range if that was something we needed. Overall though, there wasn't enough long range need to justify replacing our entire rifle and ammo inventory.
@@EssPhour most complaints are from people with bad aim blaming the rifle.
My father used m14 in vietnam his first tour, the m14 at first and m16 later during second tour. He praised the m16 for exactly the reason it's great, the ammo. When a sniper team could carry 1000 rounds for the m16 you cannot beat it.
Why I like the 7.62 x 39 round more than the 7.62 x 51. You can carry a lot more of it and it is effective to 325 yards and somewhat effective to about 425 yards.
@@liberty4392 they’re both effective out to 500 yards
The bullet drop is close to 10 feet using 7.62 x 39 at 500 yards using a sixteen inch barrel with 123 grain bullets. At 400 yards that bullet drop is close to 63 inches. I have talked with other long range shooters as well who have said they would keep 7.62 x 39 rifle rounds inside of 425 yards. Good luck getting hits with 7.62 x 39 beyond about 425 yards. The round just was not designed for long ranges.
When the role of the infantry today is to suppress tiny heat miraged silhouettes at 600-800+ meters long enough to call in air support, the difference of whether or not they're missing all those shots with 5.56 or 6mm ARC makes little difference to a military bean counter.
I think the Army is thinking more of Ukraine vs Russia situation instead of US vs Taliban. Urban warfare like in Ukraine is completely different
@@Brimwald 5.56 would be more useful in Ukraine than Afghanistan.
@@jameskobi6111 i agree (cheaper, lighter, carry more, more effective at close range, lower recoiling), but the Army keeps saying they want something that can defeat near peer body armor. That's their intent even if I think it's flawed.
@@Brimwald especially when that armor reduces the effect of terminal ballistics of any projectile.
No no no see Tim missed a 4” wide Prairie Dog at 300 yards because the wind was blowing at 25mph so 5.56 is doooone
With the right ammo 556 is extremely deadly with the right ammo and plenty accurate. Mac just wants everything to be sub moa
Pretty obvious how his civilian shooter perspective is just unrealistic when it comes to military procurement.
I would bet you money 9/10 LE/Military outside of special forces can't even shoot 1.5-2moa consistently.
Yeah, i think the 75 and 77 grain BTHP rounds are game changers for the 5.56 cartridge. I can hit milk jugs at 1,000 yards with my 18" SPR build and spray paint cans at 730 yards with about a 40% hit ratio.
Out of one of my 18" SPR rifles i'm getting 1,478 FPS and 374 ft lbs of energy at 600 yards. I think that's fine.
It's 1,653 fps and 467 ft lbs at 500 yards which is just fine for lethality. 1,564 fps and 418 ft lbs at 550 yards.
Even my 16" SCAR 16 is 1,550 fps and 414 ft lbs at 550 yards with IMI 77 grain.
@@borkwoof696 yeah Tim wants an infantryman’s rifle that shoots .5” groups, functions as a machine gun and sniper rifle, and allows him to hit prairie dogs at 300 yards with a 25mph crosswind
@@jellyfrosh9102 and anyone who would bet against you is a complete fool
This was a terrific studio debate/discourse.
I would love to see this as a template to try/eval a platform, cartridge, etc w/ guest or 2 (review even) - heck, you could put out survey questions about what the viewers would like to see covered.
“Sounds like your trying to hunt with an assault rifle…”. The whole conversation in a nut shell. The 5.56 is fine. DMRs have a purpose.
.223 is an outstanding cartridge vs medium sized game.
Imagine not having confidence in your ammo to kill a varmint, but having supreme confidence in killing a human that is 3x times bigger, wears armor and is actively trying to kill you. XD
My philosophy on this matter is, "if you aren't comfortable hunting deer with a gun, you shouldn't be comfortable hunting humans with the same gun"
I have both. For self defense they’re equal but get both & place them in different places around the house, each will serve a purpose & you get the best of both. I keep the 5.56 in the truck & 308 in a safe with body armor (since I’d ideally wear ear protection before shooting the 308).
Assault rifle? Define that without going to Google because Chipman couldn't with the congress smh
@@DJFLIPNO a select fire rifle.
My take away from this discussion is that they seem to be forgetting what the M16 and the 5.56 was designed to do in the first place it is an assault rifle and it does that job very well and therefore it is not a sniper rifle nor is it a designated Marksman rifle. The same problem occurred during the global war on terror when Special Forces operators where firing thousands of rounds through the M4 on full auto trying to turn it into a squad automatic weapon. The problem I feel is that too many people are trying to make this weapon system do something that it was never intended to do, now that being said you can modernize the AR-15 M16 you can swap calibers around and make it fill different roles however at the end of the day this cartridge and the rifle that fires it were designed together to be an assault rifle and therefore it shines within its design parameters. It's only when you try to press it into a role that it wasn't designed for that you realize it has shortcomings that is not a fault of the design instead in my opinion that is a result of the end-user trying to make do something it was never going to be able to do, remember the a10 warthog it's a amazing attack aircraft what it is not is an amazing fighter jet.
There is no such thing as an assault rifle it is a term used by people who are anti gun and video games
@@thehardcoretruth8777 There absolutely is such a thing as an assault rifle. Rifle capable of fully automatic fire (or bursts) chambered in an intermediate cartridge. Calling an AR-15 an assault rifle is dishonest but calling an M4 one is not
@@thehardcoretruth8777 you're thinking of "assault weapon" which is an ambiguous political buzzword.
Unfortunate choice of words but a good point. 👍
@@AnarchAngel1 assault rifle is a term made up to scare people to make them think guns are bad and will attack you lol . Anyone using these terms does not understand guns and plays too many video games. People that know about guns laugh at people using these terms. I served I carried these weapons you speak of and you have no idea what your talking about an M4 is a short barrel Ar15.
Really enjoyed this, shooting my whole life, I love the 5.56 at 350 and in or so but I hate to think of it ice picking past 450-500 yards.... Instead of grabbing a 308, would love to just have a 6arc that can do it all well and out to 800
Thank you Gentlemen for this instructive and entertaining conversation. I've got to say I've particularly appreciated Pad's grounded attitude and perspective. As other commenter have pointed out, 5.56 was meant to be used out of a 20 inch barrel and provide light recoil, which it does ; being a one-size-fits-all is a big ask for any cartridge. Greetings from France. 👍
556 is an all around amazing cartridge for varmint hunting great for defense against 2 legged varmints (not as deadly as a lot of other rounds but much more controllable and can hold more rounds). Perfect for war, if you can wound your enemy you take more then one man out of the fight (the one that was shot and those that need to get them to a doctor, you also use up the enemy’s resources to get the solider back to good health). That being said I like the 6.5 grendel even more and for all the same reasons
Where the mistake was made was when we got away from a 20" barrel and we got away from the rifle twist for the M-193 ammo. The M-16 itself is still a viable platform if wasn't shortened up and castrating it.
Not a mistake. No need for 20 inch barrel in an infantry rifle
I think most people don’t know that M193 out of a 20” barrel will actually blow through level III steel armor at close range.
@@bradenmchenry995 If you are using a cartridge like the 5.56 the 20" barrel is needed for several reasons. I have several 16" rifles and they are great, but 20" is really the sweet spot.
@@alexanderkaminsky6811 m855a1 doesn’t need 20 inches of barrel length. There’s a reason nobody uses long ass infantry rifles anymore they’re obsolete
40in Civil War muskets…..
Jason and Pat, thank you for your service. MAC, thank you for bringing meaningful content to the masses.
The 5.56 is in just such a sweet spot. It does everything acceptably well, it’s light, cheap to manufacture, can be carried in large quantities. Nothing else has enough advantage in every category to overcome its inertia.
You have a point, but also another advantage that was touted about it was the fact that it's light to carry compared to what the ComBlock countries had to. So our soldiers didn't have to choose between ammunition and food.
7.62 x 39 does most things better over 5.56 x 45 until you get to longer ranges around 280 to 300 yards. The 7.62 x 39 It is still everywhere as well and among the cheaper rifle cartridges. It is too bad the United States military did not take the advice of Special Forces and dumped the 6.8 x 43 Special Purpose Cartridge. It is a great intermediate rifle round but too expensive and uncommon presently.
Should have skipped the 7.62 NATO and went with 6.5x55 mm instead...
Isn't it ironic just how wrong we were, now that the US Army just replaced the M16 based rifle? 🤔
@@Apocalypse_Cow remains to be seen *if* the M4s are being replaced or or just complemented with the M5s.
Initial order seem more like an expanded troop trial than anything else.
This conversation reminds me of the 6x45 NATO Program. Back in the 1990's I owned a Colt SP1 with 24" match barrel, A1 sights and flash hider and triangular A1 handguards. It shot great but I had to make brass from 5.56x45 and handload for it. Prices got crazy during the AWB and I sold it for $4300 and bought more 5.56x45 NATO ammunition and built a couple of nice accurate AR's and another car.
I think 6 arc and 6.5 Grendel would be a lot better combat cartridge
6.5 is absolutely middle ground between 5.56 and 7.62
@@shadowopsairman1583 and it's not spectacularly good when fired from a short barrel
@@ewaldseiland8558 also really hard on bolts compared to 5.56
Definitely a 6.5 Grendel fan. Good in both a short barrel and long barrel rifle. 👌
@@ewaldseiland8558 depends what you mean by short....its pretty damn good all the way down to 12"...
5.56 can remain relevant for urban combat and such. It's still super effective at it.
So is 5.7, 30sc, 300bo or 9mm. Or 6arc for that matter. A lot of rounds would suffice, 5.56 isn't really better at it in any particular fashion. Arguably not even the most well rounded.
7.62x39 is better
@@BaconSlayer69Objectively untrue
@@colby13987.62x39 penetrates barriers better than 5.56, 7.62x39 has more stopping power than 5.56 objectively very true ur wrong I’m right
@@BaconSlayer69precisely. 7.62 is just better. 5.56 is only better in terms of recoil.
I’m curious the amount of engagements are outside of 500 yards versus inside 500. If the majority isn’t outside 500 yards it ain’t gonna be worth changing the primary caliber.
The enemy gets a vote on this. If they have a more capable cartridge, they have literally no reason to get within 500 yards.
On a dismounted patrol we carry a lot of 5.56mm, but we supplement with usually at least 1 scoped m14 and at least one 7.62mm machine gun. So at any range we are effective
WW2 the overwhelming contact was within 300 yds and most kills inside 200 yds. Iron sights part of that.
Vietnam the contact was well within 200 yds. But Iraq and Afghanistan the contacts were often out side 300 meter or ambushes from cover.
Unless you are fighting a colonial war, infantry engagement range is equal to the artillery's minimum safety distance. Which is less than 150yds (in wartime).
Not true. The more energy on target the better
5.56 is very efficient,lots of energy for a little powder,one of the best ever and still holds its own.
The 5.56 is so efficient that US soldiers were pinned down by Taliban armed with british and russian bolt action battle rifles.
With limited range
@@nmende00 So if they were 5.45s you think US Soldiers would just be jumping and hopping around outside of cover or something? LOL A fucking bullet is a bullet. I've seen the damage a 5.56 does to a human body, one shot in the leg and you're completely out of the battle. Look at what the 5.56 did to that kid in Kenosha, it literally ripped his bicep out. You think anyone is going to continue to shoot in that condition?
@@Immortalkalashnikov They did not refrain from shooting back out of fear. They didnt shoot back bc they couldnt hit the enemy from long range. 5.56 velocity at 500 yds is around 1200 fps. by that point u get zero fragmentation.
@@nmende00 That's retarded. US Soldiers would've been equipped with 20" M16A4s with ACOGs. They're at a huge advantage at that range. Especially against an old Russian bolt action rifle. I'm assuming you're referring to a mosin nagant which has horrendous sights. US Soldiers would've been able to get many more rounds down range than the Taliban would. Plus, every squad would've been equpied with a DMR that is armed with an M14 chambered in 7.62x51. Why would they not fire back? At 500 yards a 5.56 is still going to do a lot of damage and take anybody out of the fight. And since they can get multiple rounds down range, a person getting hit multiple times with a 5.56 will not have the capacity to move around as if they were uninjured.
Interesting conversation. What I particularly liked was the willingness to tolerate different points of view.
Thank you!
It seems to me that when the 5.56 is evaluated, the 55 grain projectile is considered the standard. But for long range use, we should be evaluating the performance of the 77 grain HPBT.
I appreciate your work very much and I'm still a big fan of the excellent effectiveness to weight ratio of the .223 cartridge.
The problem is it looses alot of velocity vs 55gr... that can get through steel the 62gr can't... 77gr is awesome for deer... .224 valkyrie is a great long range round for the ar... but I don't see .223 leaving any time soon they have been trying to replace it since they invented it for the ar...
💯. Especially if you start playing w powders and twists for new standard lengths. Haven't looked into 5.56 in a while but in 308 you loose less velocity as you shorten up barrel w heavier rounds.
@@AP-cm3kb yes. I think the 5.56 looses precious performance with short barreled rifles. I prefer the 20” barrel
@@AP-cm3kb At the expense of massive blast and recoil.
77gr at a 1:7 twist instead of the common 1:10 twist.
I don't see small arms being very effective in general on 21st century battlefields.
In Ukraine it appears to be mostly guided weapons of various kinds , drones , rocket launchers , mortars, artillery. mines. Even the Russians going CQB in Mariupol are going 'door to door' behind IFV,tanks and self propelled howitzers. It is sort of like the AK-12 the 5.45mm is used like what used to be 9mm sub machine guns.
So given that small arms are largely a weapon of last resort a 5.56m is fine.
it has always been like this in symmetrical warfare. Artillery and other heavy gear is for doing damage, infantry with rifles is for keeping that stuff safe.
Right. Actual small arms fire is CQB or sniper fire. In CQB, 5.56 and 5.45 are excellent, and sniper fire will always be a large cartridge. In the civilian world, it's the same story - CQB or hunting.
Military guys like MAC talking about the inefficiencies of 5.56 at intermediate ranges (300-800 yards) do so out of experience fighting the last war - an asymmetric war in mountainous terrain. They weren't fighting near-peer adversaries.
"Defeating body armor" is a fool's errand. Rifle rated armor requires a massive cartridge like .338 LM to defeat at close range. It's impractical to do. Suppress the enemy and call in CAS or other high explosive weaponry.
no its not. when your have 556 and boris comes through the door with plate armor that can stop it your dead. you need some thing that will knock him on his ass. even if it dose not go through the plate a man on the floor is one less to wory about in a situation like that. then theres trench warfare which is happening in ukraine. 556 is not that good at long range.
It depends of the terrain you're fighting in. In Ukraine it is flat open land. The same combat tactics wouldn't apply in say a Vietnam terrain setting.
@@ashlevrier 556 is okay at 500 meters, and most grunts, not to mention draftees and volunteers will not reach sensibly over 300-400 meters so all is good. As for CQB, you can easily spray Boris with burst of 556, and whether his plate will hold multiple hits or not, he will most likely have some holes in legs, arms and face as well. As a mediocre shooter myself, not a pro like MAC who shoots 50 thousand rounds a year, i have to say id feel more comfortable with 556/545 carbine rather than something more powerfull.
He keeps saying Stoner's design was around the 5.56. It was not! It was around the 7.62x51. He was forced to downsize to 5.56. But it was not what Stoner originally envisioned. The AR-10 was!
Nope he designed it around a smaller caliber. There's plenty of video of him talking about it on UA-cam.
@@grahampritchard2253 what came first, the AR-10 or the AR-15? Therein lies the answer.
@@92vanguard Fair enough. It's a bit more nuanced in that I don't think he was particularly attached to any one cartridge, and basically designed each rifle around the cartridge, rather than being forced. With the AR-15, he picked the cailber, designed the bullet, and lead the development of the cartridge, then redesigned the AR-10 around it. I think the work he did on the AR-15 and the cartridge is enough to count as "original" but it's not the first time he used the bolt as piston design.
@@grahampritchard2253 he only chose to go with the intermediate .222 Remington and him designing the cartridge was telling Remington there might be a government contract if they tweak a already popular commercial cartridge .
Stoner hardly invented 223 hahaha
He only made the AR15 to chamber it as he was told his 308 version AR10 was good but they wanted a smaller lighter bullet for there next service rifle .
Most definitely the AR10 in 308 was the original Stoner design and concept .
And to this day it’s by far the better gun having a handful of each over the years the 556 gun is more of the gun for the inexperienced shooter who is on your team if you have a choice you’d want to choose the 308 AR for yourself given the opportunity.
@@JoeWayne84 I'm going off of interviews with him that are on UA-cam. He claimed to have come up with the bullet and worked with various companies to come up with the load. It wasn't. 223 Remington until he came along. He was given a list of requirements and found a way to meet them. Call it whatever you want.
For military purposes, they would need to re design the AR rifle, "like LWRCI did with the 6.8 SPC" if they adopted the 6mm ARC...Bolt life is a concern if used in a standard AR platform...
Patents are the enemy of the AR-15 IMO. If you picked all the best innovations out there and combined them into one rifle it would be a true generational leap and incredibly robust, and you could probably get away with using bigger cartridges and cranking up the pressure, but you'll never get all the manufacturers to share their patents without throwing inordinate amounts of money at them.
Their six8 rifle and magazine really is the answer if all the only objective was a better rifle/round for our military.
The six8 platform would be pretty much GTG, if the ARC had been SPC rather than Grendel based (which I would've preferred).
@@agentoranj5858 I agree with your premise / goal, but I'm more optimistic when it comes to your conclusion. Yes, synthesis of all the most desirable features of various inventors' / manufacturers' ideas created the most of today's best products, and would solve nearly all the remaining shortfalls of the suboptimal ones. Our "all or nothing" / "cradle to grave" procurement system is the obstacle, though; synthesis would be in the patent-holders' best interest as well as the soldiers'.
Any manufacturer (not just military contract winners, but anyone who makes and sells anything) is bundling different profits into the price: the buyer is paying for his IP, and also up-charges on materials, factories / machinery, labor, and subcontractors' fees. All those latter items are gambles. Commodity price fluctuations, strikes, inflation, subcontractor QA issues, etc. can bankrupt you if your margins are low; build in too much slop, and you might price yourself out of the contract. For an inventor or investor, a royalty is a relatively risk-free "bird in the hand".
@@funkla65 Not a big deal to change the six8 to use a Grendel base bolt....
I’m all for 6mm ARC. However, the 5.56 is still a serviceable cartridge for general use in a militia context. It’s plentiful and works good enough. Changing to a new round, though it sounds easy, has quite a few supply/logistics hurdles to overcome.
Good points. 5.56 is a Niche Cartridge with a very useful Niche, which to me extends into a support role for a much more effective extremely wide role MBR Rifle and Cartridge. Personally I really like that other new combination to fill another Niche, which is the Compact Persinal Defence Weapon, the B&T in .280 ACP. Niches are what surround a MBR, and are just as needed as the MBR, to me anyway. Important lessons from Historical Engagements need to be remembered not forgotten, or we pay a heavy price while relearning them. Too much attention has lingered on WW2 Eastern Front Combat, and weapons for that wouldn't have coped in Korea for example, and didn't cope in Korea because needed Niches weren't filled. Hilltop Machine gun Nests couldn't elevate high enough to clear the bodies in front of them, and there weren't the Niche weapons to keep attackers away from those machine guns. Once the Machine Guns were silenced to only option was withdraw, or die. One British Defender found a Niche weapon, as they were attacked while drinking beer from the beer delivery. A bit pissed off at his drinking session being interrupted, he grabbed artfully of empty bottles and started throwing them at the attacking Chinese, who turned and Ran, thinking he was throwing hand grenades at them. Apparently he got a VC for that. Told to me by the Bren gun Carrier Driver who had fetched the beer for the Unit. 😅
But the military made it worse by adopting the Sig spear. Whole new platform, heavier rifle and less load out. 6MM ARC would’ve been a better way to go.
@@baliktad8
Agreed. We have a Procurement Problem that ignores lessons learned and which has been severeky adversely influenced by the ridiculous attempt to ban the use of Lead for only Fake Science induced Reasons. The Same mistake on an even grander scale is the move to make all Military Vehicles Battety Powered Electric Vehicles. The Stupidity is now clearly Completely Out of Control. ☹️
@@baliktad8 Totally agree. The new M5 would be better in 6mm ARC. But even more cost effective would be to convert M4’s to 6mm ARC. But, as usual, the Army is planning/equipping for the last war versus focusing on the fundamentals. Meanwhile, all branches are hurting when it comes to recruiting and retention.
I'm only 10 minutes in, but I think the important thing to think about is WHERE we expect to be fighting the next pointless ground war thats going to get thousands of young men killed for no reason, the terrain, climate, etc are very relevant as to whether 5.56 is "good enough" or not
I used the M16, and the M9 all my military career and that's pretty much what I use without any problems with them. I will not pass judgment on the 6.8 ARC until I have some range time with it. I have used my AR10 and loved it, I've always wished the Army would've gone that way but no I'm not that lucky. I'm kind of an old Army guy because I love my M1 Garand, M14, and my 1911s. In fact, my daily carry is a 45ACP.
It’s 6mm ARC. There’s also 6.8 SPC (6.8x43) & 6.8 Fury (6.8x51)
@@sublimetulii23 spear is the rifle. 6.8 fury is the cartridge
IMO from my military experience if you want a happy compromise in the best and most effective round that will work on the ar15-m16 platform I’m surprised all military m16 and m4 are. It being converted to 6.5 Grendel , simple conversion and imo it’s the best performance you can achieve with out having to build a different rifle in both range , BC, accuracy, and energy especially in the 18.5” barrel ranges but all solders need a Quality LPVO to add to the weapon and your set.
Spot on.
Ive got 10", 12.5" , 14.5" grendels . Excellent performance with bc and sd way above 556/6.8 . Better bullet weights and bore area than 6arc
Surprised nobody mentioned better bullets and powder loads for 5.56x45. Superformance from Hornady with 75gr or 77gr bullets has a definite edge that can help both external and terminal ballistics in the 5.56, with no practical recoil difference if the rifle is gassed to that load. Considering the adherence to 5.56x45, just upgrading the powder and bullets could be the way to go, and this smaller gas port would also help the rifle function smoothly on the hotter M855A1.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, and I have said that the 5.56 mm X 45 mm with the Black Hills 75 grains jacketed hollow point boat tail, and the Hornady 75 gr jacket hollow point boat tail Tactical Application Police rounds are the best rounds that are available in caliber 5.56 mm.
For the facts on the development of the 5.56 and the AR platform go watch "In Range TV"s video: "What would Stoner do - In his own words" The 5.56 was developed to work with a conscript army, carrying large amounts of ammunition in adverse conditions where ranges were short and snap shots or suppressive fire were the norm.
Are* war hasn’t changed. Combat takes place at less than 400m that is the rule. There are exceptions but it is the rule. Better training is required. The US military has terrible training and a laziness problem for the gun range.
Stoner also designed it to have a 20 inch barrel firing a 55 grain projectile at 3000+ fps velocity so it would tumble and violently fragment but for some reason we are using a barrel at about half that length and a heavier bullet that doesn't reach the velocity to fragment as per the design specifications and goal of the designer.
@@christopherwombles2867 62gr hits 3k at 14.5 with little increase in pressure thanks to new development in powders.
@@FXIIBeaver Imagine what it could do out of a 20" barrel and how much more Muzzle Energy it could have if you optimized it for 20" barrels.
@@kamenriderblade2099 probably the same exact speed.
The avrage soldier isn't shooting beyond 300 meters. You have mounted or crew served weapons systems for longer engagements. Most M4s aren't issued with magnification beond x3 if any. The mounted 50 cal has a huge thermal scope.
I just listened to a couple of these guys videos and think they are a little full of it. One video they argue the opposite of what they do in this video.
The 5.56 remains a very effective cartridge. Recall, when we went to the shorter barrel M4 we gave up some velocity and range for a smaller weapon better suited for urban use. Fighting an enemy equipped with a 7.62 x 39 weapon did not present a disadvantage. The M16 with the 20 inch barrel is effective out beyond 500 meters. The longer barrel, and effective range is better suited for longer range engagements. As a military guy I want the lightest round, with least recoil, that provides effective kill ability at the intended range of the weapon. Great discussion.
For anyone wanting to know the difference between 5.56 and 7.62, ill make it simple.
Do you want to wound an enemy up to 500 meters, or kill an enemy up to 400 meters?
inb4 AR fanboys ree at me, I've seen what makes you cheer. Not impressed Lol.
They increased the grain for the shorter barrels
5.56x45 is absolutely at a disadvantage to 7.62x39 within 300 meters out of 16” barrels. It lacks stopping power and penetration, and is far more effected by wind and light brush. Not to mention the guns that fire it (AUG excluded) are generally less reliable than the guns that fire 7.62x39. In conclusion, if your goal is to potentially wound someone 100 yards farther out who isn’t behind cover/concealment, it’s the better choice… otherwise it’s inferior.
I would call 556 "very effective " I would call it effective enough. Lol
@@TheDiameter Stopping power doesn't exist, and ball 7.62x39 has inferior wounding to 5 45x39.
Just like the Russians figured out, flatter trajectory and lower recoil trumps the 7.62's lower deflection.
There's also virtually no issues with reliability on most service weapons as long as they're being used properly (many failures of the AR were due to ammo, magazines, etc).
Your comment seems like it came straight out of a 2006 episode of Future Weapons.
Price, availability, and the amount of platforms that use .556 over various manufacturers make this a moot point.
Not for the military
Great exchange of knowledge on various platforms. Learned a lot and took away the fact that various parts of our military units have different types of platform use based on the task.
I’m a 300 blackout guy, and I replaced my 9mm with a 10mm as my sidearm. Stopping power is important when it really counts.
Funny because I just made the same switch. 45acp-10mm 5.56-300blk. Very happy with my decisions
I would be curious if bullet improvements on a 6 ARC is something the SEAL’s are already working on. A 6 ARC with a tungsten core bullet sounds impressive on paper.
Fully agree.
I also think the case tech and optics improvements offered by the NGSW cam be applied to the 6mm ARC.
Exception being: the MG 338 looks amazing. The MG68 is also cool but really relies on 6.8 implementation being broad. Otherwise it makes sense to use a different modern ultralight LMG in an intermediate platform... 6mm arc.
@@ravissary79 Integration of Sig’s steel backed cartridge could lighten the ammo closer to the 5.56 round. The integration of Sig technology would also allow a larger range of chamber pressures to play with, or more case room for a longer heavier bullet. Basically what I’m getting at is a end user would a huge spectrum of weapon configurations from one ammunition form factor. Everything from a DMR, to a breaching rifle with improved stopping power or possibly even subsonics.
Only thing about that round is it needs a long barrel. Military likes fairly short barrels.
@@aaron5270 yup, exactly. Military is already looking at Q's new 8.6 blackout "large platform" tactical sub/supersonic round for something like the Spear Raptor, or some new future ultralight PDW style weapon. It's going public in s few months, and promises to change the mainstream subsonic game, especially berthed supers are viable to hunt anything in North America and most of Africa, while being effective out to 300 yards on deer/elk/pigs, and 400 on 2 legged varmints.
@@beardedrancher exactly. Thays where I think giving it the hybrid case treatment can crack that nut. Trouble is, 6.5 Grendel bolts are already pushing the boundaries and going up to 80k psi doesn't help. You'd need to upgrade the platform to take a larger ar10 style bolt to reap all of the benefits.
I agree the 6 Arc just makes since. I'm a Vietnam era Air Force vet who qualifed with an M-16, fell in love with that rifle the minute I shot it. I grew up a hunter and shot 222 for groundhogs and 30-06 for deer. I liked it so much when I discharged I bought a Colt H-bar. After punching holes in dirt and paper it sat in the closet for 20 years before I sold it. Years later, after it became Americas pet firearm, I wanted one again. I won one at my gun club, decided to freefloat it, change the handguard and grip to Magpul, and put in a Geissele 2-stage trigger. After that I thought I would like to build my own from scratch. Now I have 8 Ar's of my own and have built several more for other people, I'm hooked.Of my builds 4 are 556 or 223 Wilde, two are pistol builds, 1, 9mm pistol build, 1- 350 Legend, 1- 7.62x39, and my last, which I have not shot yet a 6mm Arc, can't wait to send some rounds down range. I think the weight savings and having most everybody with the same ammo is a nobrainer, and having everyone with a rifle capable of doing a better job even if they are not up to the long distance job. But they could be trained.
A 6mm makes sense but the Grendel or ARC is too large for the mag well of an AR15 and the bolts are to weak for military use. Make a new AR15 lower that is wider and new wider mags and a stronger bolt then it would be a decent choice for military use.
5% of the Military are trigger pullers, the other 95% don't engage directly in combat, but still need a rifle when things invariably go wrong. Zero to 300 meters is still going to account for 90% of all rifle/carbine engagements. What matters is whether the cartridge can do its job within that envelope, not whether it helps you get better hits at 600 meters. Once the 5.56 can no longer reliably kill or wound within 300 meters, it will need to be replaced. Modern Body Armor that can defeat 5.56 ball that is in near universal use, will necessitate a caliber change, nothing else. SIG and the Army are 100% on the wrong track, producing weapons that "do it all", based on the last wars the U.S. engaged in, not future conflicts. All of the alternative cartridges discussed aren't going to do anything for the military that the 5.56 isn't already doing. Regarding the AR/M4 platform, most of the issues have been worked out and if you are issued a 14.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 USASOC Improved Upper with a quality optic and MK262 ammo (not the M855/A1 shit), you're probably going to be more than OK in 2022. The M16/M4 has only a few unresolved issued that are minor for big army; magazines literally freezing inside the magwell in the Arctic, gas tubes blowing-up if water is in the barrel and that's about it.
I disagree with your assessment of 855a1, but 👍 otherwise.
"Do it All" as always been something I've had concerns with, even before I knew as much as I do now. We can even bring this into the media. When you try to please everybody, you end up pleasing nobody. Or in Aviation the F-35. Designed to do everything, but has a lot of shortcomings and still isn't as good as older aircraft. Can't carry anti-ship missiles. Isn't as good in CAS as F-16s or A-10 and isn't good at dogfighting like the F-22 or F-15s. Its stealth ability is lacking compared to the F-22 or even the F-117.
6.8x51mm is not considered a "do it all" cartridge by the military though, it's simply the minimum necessary for those 5% trigger pullers to successfully engage with opponents wearing body armor; the Army is very much looking at the future. It was never intended for the other 95%.
If we’re talking 0-300 meters, where simplicity, stopping power, and reliability are king… then 7.62x39 is by definition the superior choice.
@@TheBlankJoker the F-35 can't be judged by 1960s dogfighting standards. When you can point the nose at very high AoA and lob an all aspect HOBS missile, "dogfighting" is done differently.
i personally have a 556, 6.5 Grendel and built a 6m/m arc sept. in 2020
not going to push my 556 to the side( to much ammo)
6.5 grendel came about because my neighbor was a navy seal and they were using 6.5 grendel and they loved them over the 556
6m/m arc wanted a little more from the small case and read about the contract hornady got from the military to work up a new cartridge for the AR platform. liked it and had to build one
6.5 grendel is probably the best overall. I have a ar 15 pistol in that and with a 12 inch Barrel that thing is amazing up close and the easily 600 plus yards depending on the shooters ability
Especially if sigs 2 piece cartridge was applied to 6.5grendel. Drive a 130 grn bullet 2850fps. Cavity back amuntion makes a mk118 bullet it's 118grn and reaches 2550fps out of a 18 in barrel with a normal case. Also steel cased ammo is lighter and cheaper so that's always a option. Serbia adopted it militarily. Especially with cmmg power bolt. Or like zastava ak47 bolts. It could handle the pressure
You need to look at this from the perspective of a comity of officers tasked with a cost/effect analyses of the ammunition. They do not hold effectiveness to the highest of needs when selecting any gear but rather a mix of effect, cost, and easy of procurement. If the ammo works really well but is extremely expensive which means you can't afford to get the numbers of it you need on a mass scale. This entire scenario is the main reason the military is so slow to adopt anything let alone adopt something to replace something that is still very functional and at low cost. I think we would see plastic cased ammo become the standard before you see the 5.56 get replaced given how well it works against humans in combat.
In combat, you have to think about how the enemy fights. No one stands in the middle of the open shooting, so largely what you are doing is suppressing, even as the main line infantry.
Your argument also points out why you need the capability of small target hits in small amounts of time
@@FEDsShotMOM yes we understand that but you want your men to stay in the fight. Sometimes firefights are won by the enemy running low on ammo. The 5.56 gives you the best capability and versatility
Agreed. 556 is the support...
Fascinating discussion.
I think this 6.8x51 winds up being used in specialized units, and the M4/M16/5.56 is going to serve for another 10-15 years at least. 6.8SPC would be better in a general purpose rifle, but not better enough to make the change. No effing way the 6.8x51/277 Fury winds up being the standard issue rifle.
Not according to all the press release for the new rifles it says all combat troops meaning the army’s nearly 80,000 dedicated infantry troops will all have the 6.8 with the sig spear and the m250 machine gun replacing the m4 and m249 respectively only non combat troops will keep the m4
I think you underestimate the size of the golden parachute that is on the line here.
@@apersonontheinternet8006 screw colt/fn haven’t had a good idea in a long while
@@jesseterrell2109 lmao they still havent phased out the m16 in a lot of units
@@user-nb8yt2il2r it’s ok the way things are going I don’t think we are going be able to change.
One of the best attributes of the AR15 platform is it's modularity, a new caliber is as simple as swap the barrel and the bolt or upper and you're good to go. That's why my AR15's are 5.56/.300 Blackout/6.5 Grendel ............. long live the 5.56.
I plan to upgrade to 277 SIG FURY because I hate myself, hate barrels, and hate my wallet.
🤣
The TV round is the likely winner, not Sig.
@@jon4466 not likely
@@bradenmchenry995 Army put out an RFP for M240 6.8mm conversation kits, TV demoed this, Sig hasn't to my knowledge.
something like a 6x45 would be more likely to get widely adopted over the 6 arc as far as universally issued. that is just a barrel change
25-45 sharps . Would do well in a shorter bbl due to more bore area
5.56 persists because it's cheaper to keep her and at the scale we're talking about, it's really, really cheap. I'm most interested in 6mm ARC as a relatively inexpensive replacement that truly increases effectiveness. It doesn't change the magazine and works neatly within the operating parameters of the guns that already use 5.56 and it offers tangible improvements in range without sacrificing terminal effect at any range or soft shooting or anything like that. Get new barrels or barreled uppers and bolts and let the quartermasters do what they do. If you're OK with the marginal expense of all new guns, which is what you're looking at when you look beyond the STANAG magazine, like the US military seems to be with the XM5, I think that opens some much more interesting doors.
I never shot anyone with my m16A2 that I wanted to trade places with.
I will be interested in changing the projectile
5.56 and 7.62x39 will always be here and always will remain relevant.
5.45x39mm is round used by Russia since 1974 . China's new rifle uses neither 7.62x 39mm not the 5.45x39mm , it uses it's own specific round . 7.62x39mm is only used by 3rd world terrorists . 7.62x39mm has been obsolete for over 30 years , Americans didn't get the memo .
Yep. Until center fire small arms become obsolete those two cartridges will always be the mainstay.
Alongside the famous .308win / 7.62x51
I think the 5.56 is the best all around cartridge ever. Although I am partial to the. 308, but for ammo carrying capacity, ease of control, and lethality at closer ranges the 5.5.56 does well
Here is the deal :
Imagine that you are in the future of the " TERMINATIOR" univers
And you fighting T600 model like robot whith escort of heavy armoured exoskeleton wearing troopers
And your main stockpile and your standard issue is 5.56....
556 is good for now but when you want to set up logistics for the future and not running the last second you need to beef it up
e.g: 50 cal. Anti metirial rifles used as sniper rifles to hangry Afghan drug talibans
Not even well build Europeans
5.45 master race
300blk
Exactly, which is why I shoot and own both.
For many Americans, myself included, we don't have 5.56 because it's a superior cartridge, we have it because of availability. If Big Army switches to 6 or 6.8 many Americans will follow suit because of that. 5.56 is sufficient for many tasks and is very comfortable and controllable. For those reasons it would be a very LONG time before it goes away. A 6mm or 6.8 that has similar qualities would be an even better cartridge overall, but Americans buy what the Army shoots. For these changes to be common in the civilian market the military almost HAS to change first.
The 5.56 is completely serviceable for civilian use. Who here is shooting at more than 300 meters? Home defense is 5 meters or less. Outside in rural areas is still 100 meters or less. And as you said cheap as heck. I love the 5.56. The military may move to 6.8 and I will wait till it gets cheap to get one but I won't be using it around the home. Way too high penetration.
The common civilian will not change to the new rifle or cartridge. The new cartridge is a proprietary 2 piece design rated at 80k psi specifically made for the Sig Spear. Sig is selling the civilian version on their website for 8,000 dollars and it's not even in the new caliber they developed. The comman shooter can't afford an 8k rifle let alone the special ammo that's very niche.
I've always loved the 6mm-7mm range bullet, but once the 277 is available it will be crazy expensive so I know I'll hang on to 556, tho I'd like a 6.8 AR 😁
It's cheap and so much fun to shoot, like a .22lr on steroids.
75 grain 5.56 & 77 grain .223 are nothing to sneeze at. I am not a fan of 62 grain green tip, because it often lacks accuracy even in dead calm wind conditions. I run 6.5 Grendel and I later went to 6.8Spc, plus I used 300 Hush or Blackout when it was still a wildcat. I am running a 338 H&H Magnum parent case 6.5mm wildcat now in an AR10. It's got some legs, so it can reach out a long ways and it kicks pretty hard too, (on both ends).
If we were looking at a specific rifle setup with fixed criteria (barrel length, muzzle device, suppressor, optic, etc.) it would be much easier to select a cartridge. For example, a .300 Blk does better out of short barrels (potential velocity), but it doesn’t do very well at/past intermediate range even with a longer barrel. .244 Valkyrie might have great potential range out a longer barrel, but out of a short barrel, you’ll get much more flash/blast. Then what about the recoil of the weapon system, which detracts from fast follow up shots.
5.56 isn’t great when measured by any of these criteria, but it does good enough; while being plentiful and inexpensive.
it dose terible. how many wars do we need to lose for you to realize that. what are you going to do when they enemy has armor that is prof against 556.
@@ashlevrier there are already 5.56 offerings that are very effective against modern armor. Look up M855A1. There will always be newer designs and technologies. The question is, when have we advanced enough to abandon current tech for newer tech?
.300 Blk with a 10.5" barrel is what I'm building now because I intend on going to my bro's farm in S.Texas and hunt hogs. Max range there is 100-150 yds mostly because of the trees and brush. I'd have a .556 just for plinking. I have several .22's for that though.
6mm arc is a outstanding compromise though. Same energy than 300 blk out of a 11 inch barrel, more range than anything but .224 valkyrie out of an ar-15.
If you want a wonder cartridge, that's it right there.
For anything like the ar10 cartridges to be viable we will need to rethink the recoil reduction system. Reducing the sharpness is not enough.
@@TheSonsOfSimon it dose not go through plate
I want something with light recoil, 1000 yard effectiveness, sub moa accuracy, ability to defeat modern body armor, doesn’t lose magazine capacity, inexpensive and readily available. I want all of this without making any sacrifices.
@Chano Leyva I mean I actually can and do but that was a sarcastic comment which you didn’t seem to pick up on
@@ilaughattonydanza1081 i loved this comment
@Chano Leyva That's the whole point of the comment. The Army has decided they need a 1,000 yard cartridge in the hands of every soldier, but those soldiers are only trained to shoot out to 300 yards, and they're no rockstars even at that distance.
if 6 arc would be the likely cartridge but its still fairly new
@Chano Leyva smooth brain moment
5.56 is good for engagements within 300 yards that is standard engagement distance. The NGSW look like they are gonna equip the US army to fight in Afghanistan.
Two factors that should be addressed: 1) A larger caliber reduces the amount of ammo troops can carry by one third. Accuracy becomes important with an underpowered round, like the 5.56, but it becomes more important when you carry fewer rounds. 2) A larger caliber rifle will be substantially heavier, like the spearhead. Does transitioning to a heavier rifle make sense at a time when physical fitness standards are being effectively lowered?
I'd be interested in a follow-up now that Sig and that oddball cartridge is the official NGSW. I agree that there are better alternatives that are currently available, but until the military does away with 5.56 it's going to be a mainstay. Honestly, part of the problem is how long its been around and how much has been stockpiled both by civilian and other NATO countries. 5.56 isn't really the best choice for anything, but it's not going away any time soon.
I personally believe that 5.56 is good but if you put it back in a m16. The m4 is supposed to be a rear guard weapon.
The 6.8x51 is spec’s to be operating at 80K psi chamber pressures. This makes me wonder how much the service life of the parts will be affected.
Will parts need to be replaced at more frequent intervals? Will the rifles have to be built heavier to hold up to the operating pressures? What about barrel life?
It really looks like the barrels are expected to be expendable and the question on procurement's mind isn't whether or not 6.8 SIG will perform better than .308, but whether or not the barrels are worth the performance.
That's the Sig cartridge, the TV cartridge runs at standard pressures.
@@agentoranj5858 right. Ballistically, its doing awesome even out of a 16” barrel. But what is the cost (mechanically and monetarily), and is it worth the benefit.
Barrels lasted 12,000 rounds in testing
@@bradenmchenry995 thats not very good lol
Most people who have never shot before do better qualifying than those who learned the wrong way
The 5.56 has always been less than ideal. But, it appears, based on the fact that it is still here, after 60 years of service, that it is a combination that almost everyone can shoot very well and very quickly. In addition, you can definitely carry a lot more ammo than larger more capable cartridges like the 6.5 CM. I do think they should go back to the 20 inch barrels. I personally loved the rifle that I was issued. It was not a sniper rifle, but it was plenty accurate for its intended purpose. It was very light and the ergonomics are great. I doubt it’s going to change anytime soon.
I was a cop in Puerto Rico and Washington DC. Never in my life I've seen a person shot with a 22LR. I saw one shot with a 45 ACP, one with a 380 ACP, one with a 38 special, and so many with a 9mm that I simply lost count. I want to know where is this place in the US where everybody is being killed with a 22lr at such alarming rate that it throws out the statistics of deaths by 9mm
Suicides, hunting too
When you factor in all deaths and injuries caused by various cartridges, just about every year, far more are killed or injured in the US by .22 LR than any other cartridge. The data's out there, but it takes some digging to come up with it.
John Lott has made reference to it in his earlier studies.
Puerto Rico and Washington DC when you list two places that have been historically anti-gun you cannot expect people there to have common plinking rounds to everyone else uses as a small kid on up to the elderly senior years. People and anti-gun areas are going to be using guns and they're going to be using guns to commit crimes and murders so they're definitely not going to be seeking out 22 long rifle they're going to be using more traditional full-size combat caliber pistols. Puerto Rico and Washington DC are not inundated with recreational shooters to have recreational firearms and recreational ammo laying all over the place like the rest of the country. Those are two of the worst locational examples one could ever find.
5.56 is still relatively good it's home is close engagements where distance is close and troops are not experienced in recoil control. We need a space age dmr that can perform at longer range and pierce todays armor up close. Please note Dmr is not have to have full auto.
Sounds like a walk back in a circle to a battle rifle. What makes a battle rifle into DMR material? Accurate modern action I suppose. AR-10? idk.
My thought process is that if we're obsessed with chopping barrels down and suppressing them with the higher likelihood of CQB, why don't we just go 300blk if we're looking to move to something different?
It's logistics. 5.56 is fully integrated into our society. Just think of the sheer amount of 5.56 ar15 mags, bolts, ammo, reloading supplies, optics designed for 5.56, and all the police departments that use them. Probably the single best cartridge to stock as an American.
Switch to 6mm arc, have hornady team up with true velocity polymer casings to get weight of ammo down further so you can offset the little extra weight incurred by 6mm arc. There should be no difference in training between the 2 calibers.
6.5grendel has higher bc velocity bullets. And bigger bullets for AP capabilities. And has cheap steel cased ammo. Unlike 6arc.
I say combined 6.5grendel with sig 2 piece technology. And go without much longer bullets than stanag mags allows. And bring back WW2 M2 style steel ammo
Love it. Light, good ballistics, fast and great distance.
I think most hunters like myself will be happy to buy a 6mmARC upper for hunting as soon as ammo and reloading equipment are available. To facilitate this move to 6mmARC your channel should consider doing videos on testing 6mmARC uppers and constructing accurate 6mmARC uppers.
Gotta get the rest of the states to allow semi-autos for all hunting. PA has been talking about it for several years. All they gave us so far is Sunday hunting. I’ve somewhat shelved my 6.5 Grendel hunting project AR because I can’t use it yet.
I'm rebarreling my ddm4v7 pro w a 16" 6arc
I want to see some velocity testing out of 14.5 and 16inch barrels with slightly lighter loads.
@@coolbeans6148 SOLGW is now selling a 13.9 barrel Grendel package. I think 85-95 grain bullets out of that would be awesome out to 400 or so yards.
I have real good results with my 16" 300blk 200 yards and under with a 150gr I knocked the shit out of two of them and both fell right there I was impressed but if I was going longer than 200 is what I want to check out the 6ARC for
Vulcan is a rifle that can be switched from 5.56x45 to 5.45x39 to 7.62x39, pretty easily, it is mostly polymer, but very durable and light.
I am from Ukraine by the way, and that rifle is based on Steyr AUG A2
we have currently 2 cartridges, 308 and 556, during Vietnam when they switch to 556 it fitted to cqb, but now days with more open field combat like in the mountains of Afghanistan or the wide open deserts there or even during desert storm and the iraq war itself even the British realised that they lack in effective range with the 556, so what we need is something in between 556 and 308
Like 6.5grendel. Better than arc up close. Has better bc long range bullets than 6arc. And has a larger bullet great for AP application. Steel cased ammo could be made to be cheaper. Sigs 2 piece cartridge in ,6.5grendel would be essentially 6.5creedmore power wise. Serbia adopted it. Cmmg power bolt ar15s can handle the extra power. As can any ak47. 6.5grendel is popular in Europe and Russia unlike 6.8 or 6arc. And 6.5 case taper helps extraction. And if steel or 2 piece cases were used it would be light.
Like 6.5grendel. Better than arc up close. Has better bc long range bullets than 6arc. And has a larger bullet great for AP application. Steel cased ammo could be made to be cheaper. Sigs 2 piece cartridge in ,6.5grendel would be essentially 6.5creedmore power wise. Serbia adopted it. Cmmg power bolt ar15s can handle the extra power.
I was Cavalry so we were on M1s and Bradley's in my time of service the M16 was what you carried to chow. I agree the average trooper does not usually know about calibers, but if they saw a hopped up Hoggie dropped with one round of 6ARC vs a mag on 5.56 then they will be educated quickly. 6 ARC just drops the pants on 5.56 all the way around and the logistics are really not as difficult as they are made out to be to changing. It will be slow to happen though too much red tape.
“M16s were what you carried to chow”. Good stuff 😂
I wonder how long it will take after Afghanistan to remember that fighting past 1/4 mile is the exception, not the rule? I'm actually intrigued by the 6 ARC (though I have zero experience with it) but I think the lighter ammo and acceptable performance out to 400m make the 5.56 a very viable round for most kinds of infantry fighting.
In the modern world your enemy has bodyarmor, making 5,56x45 ineffective. In the next war in Europe (may it never happen but it´s not looking good..) there are dense woods, cities (walls) and enemies with bodyarmor. Under those circumstances 5,56x45 mm is totally inadequate. (I understand that such a war will not be decided by rifles but you still need to be able to take an enemy down with your personal weapon)
@@sgthl 5.56 NATO does very well against armor.
@@sgthl That doesn't make 5.56 ineffective. Dense woods means that rifle fighting occurs at closer ranges. You're actually at a disadvantage with a heavier caliber.
You claim 5.56x45 is inadequate but you miss the point that body armor isn't an invulnerability cheat that negates enemy bullets, it's a second chance at living after you get hit. Casualties in war have shifted the dead to wounded because nowadays there's proper combat medicine, and you can survive even if you get a limb blown off. However, upper chest hits are much harder to deal with in the field. That's what plates do. Shift dead to wounded.
And you have to consider how it feels in the receiving end. Imagine being forced to carry plates that you know will not save your life. You're going to prefer to just go with soft armor for fragmentation and skip the useless weight.
@@sgthl I dunno mang; American/NATO troops have shot a lot of enemy combatants since the introduction of 5.56 that haven't been wearing armor. Not saying it couldn't happen, but it really hasn't either.
@@snek9353 No it doesnt, not real military issued armor.
Make the standard 5.56 round in country some variation of a 69-77 grain projectile. When the Marine Corps switched from the M16A1 to the A2, rifle scores across the board went up a few points. When they switched from 55 grain to 62 grain, the scores went up again. Though the M855 62 gr projectile is inferior in many ways to 55gr M193, the weight and better ballistics of the 62 grain allowed it to carry better at the 500 yard line. The shooters at Camp Perry every year take the AR-15 out to 600 yards and shoot MOA accuracy using mainly 75-80 grain OTM projectiles. Many loads are loaded to an OAL that will not fit in a standard magazine, but the point still stands. There is definitely more potential in the 5.56 and it would be far more logistically feasible to upgrade the projectile than the entire cartridge.
I carried 5.56 my whole military career... I loved my rifle and was confident in what I could do with it!
The only thing I didn't like about it was it's lack of power against vehicles! I often wished I had my terps 7.62 when vehicles approached our position!
In my opinion the 6mm arc or even the 6.8 would finalize the debate once and for all of what is the perfect military round.I am not a military guy but I've always thought the 5.56 was a wee bit small.I also agree that if the military adapted either round then the public would be right behind them!!!
I have always thought that the 6mm rem. was the perfect military round. 100 gr. projectile @ 3,000fps. Best of both worlds. The problem has always been the military has to re-invent the wheel Every time !
Redneck Range Rambos would be onboard if they just called it the .277 Tactical.
It's too high pressure. Military shoots a lot of lead and need a barrel that'll last longer than 3000 rounds.
Price is what makes the difference for me, I'll stick to 556.
Right.