Will 5.56 NATO be overtaken by a new caliber?

**Bang** · November 23rd, 2018, 04:22 PM

I fully understand the wound v kill paradigm. I was speaking of the round getting to the target thru brush. At the time, it was a question. And, if the 50K rounds to make one hit is anywhere near correct, the question stands.

**JAKIII** · November 23rd, 2018, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bang

I fully understand the wound v kill paradigm. I was speaking of the round getting to the target thru brush. At the time, it was a question. And, if the 50K rounds to make one hit is anywhere near correct, the question stands.

I suppose these days (since Desert Storm) it’s more about a bullet’s ability to penetrate walls, versus brush? Not much armed conflict happening in other than arid climates.

I find this topic of interest and will keep my eye on this thread as those with ballistics knowledge weigh in.

**Bang** · November 23rd, 2018, 05:21 PM

Not exactly a matter of penetration. Around the time the M16 ammo was being developed and was becoming public knowledge, there was already a school of thought and articles in hunting lore that a heavier, blunter, somewhat slower bullet would tend to "plow" light brush aside while a pointier, lighter and faster bullet was more susceptible to being shoved off course. There were also tests of buckshot thru brush with the target behind exhibiting less hits than when shot at in the open.

Along comes the pointy, light, 5.56 designed to tumble upon striking the human target (a way of getting around the ban on hollow point bullets in war). Obviously, the bullet is probably going to tumble when glancing off of forest growth. Also, keep in mind that two world wars had been fought and won using the venerable 30-06. Dropping to such a light bullet was a head-scratcher, augmented by the street BS of its ability to rip an arm off if it came near the arm, generating questions.

As I said, (if I am recalling correctly), the belief that a heavy "brush-bucking" bullet could dependably push brush aside without being thrown off course or thrown off as badly as the lighter pointy bullet was shown to be less the magic answer. So, when the military chose the 5.56, it was compared (by lay persons) to then-present-day beliefs, and the choice seemed odd.

**JAKIII** · November 23rd, 2018, 06:12 PM

Thanks for the perspective Bang.

Just think of all the small arms in NATO’s inventory that would be phased out with introduction of a new (different) rifle caliber, (i.e., think cost factor). M16, M4, M249, Sig MCX...

Here’s an interesting reference of the current US small arms in inventory.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...ed_States_Army