Question for the gun experts

[dan_bgblue]

Why did NATO adopt a 5.56 caliber round as the standard for their forces? And a second question if you do not mind, why in the world did the USA follow suit?

Thank you and I will hang up and listen.

[CitizenBBN]

From the beginning, the Euro nations wanted a smaller round, the US at the time favoring larger rounds. The US all but vetoed anything smaller than the 308 (7.62x51mm NATO), and that became the standard small arms caliber. In the US the M14 was the corresponding service rifle.

Then the thing reversed. Armalite started working on what would be the M16 and with Remington they modified the .222 to increase powder load and in the end the .223 was born and Armalite built the M16 around it. Once the US military was sold on the smaller and lighter round, it then was adopted by NATO as well.

The argument for a smaller round is a) you can carry more rounds, what is seen as an increase in firepower, and b) it has less recoil and more control, esp. on full auto or select fire.

Both of those are true, as those videos of women shooting ARs shows. It's an easy round to shoot. the only real problem with the 223 is that its stopping power is largely a function of velocity, so if the velocity is reduced by range or a shorter barrel weapon (the M4) its effectiveness drops quickly. The first M16s also had a 1:14 twist and the M4 has a 1:12 twist. This improves accuracy some, but some argue the change in twist makes the bullet too stable and eliminates the tumbling that was one of the more heralded positives of the round. It would hit a person then lose control, causing hollow point type damage despite not being a hollow point, something banned by the Geneva Convention.

There's some debate on this point, b/c another group says it's b/c of the balance of the round, that it's center of gravity is such that it will tumble. The problem there is the data saying that the tumble effect has lessened from the originally very nasty wounds inflicted in Vietnam. I imagine it's both, that the round's balance promotes tumbling in some way, but the tighter twist makes it tougher for it to tumble on initial impact so it takes longer to start.

FWIW the Russians did the same thing, going down to the 7.62x39mm but then down to the 5.45x39mm by the 70s, but the AK (and in the US the SKS) have become so globally ubiquitous it still ends up being the smaller and lighter 223 versus the 7.62x39mm.

So in answer to your question, it was really the US that led NATO to that adoption, though it was also the US leading them to a place they'd wanted to go to many years prior.

There is a newer spec round of the 5.56 that is non-lead that apparently has better ballistics that may help some. Personally I like a little more weight in my bullets from pistol to rifle, preferring weight to velocity in the f=ma equation. There are arguments for both sides, but what's happened in the modern use of the 5.56 is they've cut down the barrel length and tightened the twist, both of which reduce velocity, and in a velocity favored round that means fewer stops.

I haven't fired the Grendel, but it was built to address being fired under those conditions and special forces seem to really like it. It's still light, but less velocity reliant so it can still deliver from a short barrel at range. Like you I'd like to see the military come up with a more ideal cartridge. I can get behind the R&D for that kind of goal.

[CitizenBBN]

Realized I left out the most important part IMO: the M16/5.56/223 wasn't so much adopted by the US military brass as by the Sec of Defense McNamara and the Whiz Kids working for Kennedy. One of the guys on my personal short list to torture in hell for a few 100 years.

The Pentagon (Army) had a report that rejected the M16 and wanted to stick with the M14. He also had reports from Vietnam advisors and special ops guys where some M16s had been tested that were very positive. Also an Air Force general had wanted them but his request was denied b/c it would be a non-standard caliber. McNamara was big on standardization, and for that much I don't blame him in principle. he ordered another review comparing the M14, AK47 and M16. It decided the Army had stacked the deck in their tests (I don't completely buy it), but IMO it was about standardizing and McNamara thinking he knew more than the generals that finally had him cancel M14 production and order the M16 into the field.

Fortunately most of those things were fixable, and later revisions did address those issues. The AR platform is vastly popular and it is as reliable as ever. Not as reliable as the AK, its tolerances are too tight, but it did overcome early issues with powder/corrosion.

The problem was, other than the debate about the round/rifle, there were known issues with the rifle design and he didn't want to listen to them. As with everything else, he thought the military was backward in their thinking and he tended to ignore their concerns as just being close minded. The original M16 had issues with the barrel b/c military powder is more corrosive and the barrels and receivers weren't chrome lined, McNamara insisted on the forward assist even though Colt didn't want to build it that way, several other things.

So in a way the US "military" didn't really adopt the M16/5.56 platform. A bunch of Harvard MBAs who thought war was about kill ratios had as much or more to do with its adoption as any general. Had it gone the way the various branches wanted the Air Force would have them (they're light) and the Army would have beefier battle rifle, or would have had for many more years. Personally I think a smaller rifle/round was inevitable, but it would have been a while longer before the army gave up the 308.

It's a massively popular round though, so it's not like it's useless or anything. It's just on the velocity side of the force equation more than the next most popular round in the category, the 7.62x39.

[suncat05]

Pros and cons both ways with the rifle, and the round itself.
But don't worry, when the UN troops start coming in to police the U.S. there'll be PLENTY of AK's available for everyone that wants one! :evilgrin0007:

[suncat05]

And most of them will have never been fired, and only dropped once! :sHa_dielaughing:

[dan_bgblue]

I would prefer that they brought Uzis in the 9mm or .45 cal variety, but beggars can't be choosers