Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

5.56x45 Nato not an "effective" round?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • reidnez
    Senior Member
    • Mar 2009
    • 1852

    This is a pretty old, tired argument. In my view, 5.56 is a "good enough" round, but 6.8 is better overall. Caliber choice is always a compromise between competing factors. You can carry a lot more 5.56, and put a lot more of them on a smaller target in a given amount of time, than with a bigger round.

    I believe that the rifle reached the zenith of its development some time ago, and there will probably never be another revolutionary improvement in the technology. The military's "next rifle" may not be a rifle at all, but a directed energy weapon or something we haven't even conceived of yet. Optics and other supporting tech have improved substantially in the last 50 years, but the rifle is basically the same. The military has toyed with the idea of replacing the M16 several times, but always expects to find something revolutionary which will probably never come. They don't seem to be interested in an incremental (but significant) improvement like the 6.8. And really, for the cost and logistical investment involved in replacing millions of weapons (or even just millions of upper receivers) I can't say it's a bad decision. The M16/M4 will probably soldier on for a few more decades, until an entirely new technology replaces it.
    Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide

    Comment

    Working...
    UA-8071174-1