• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

E

Eric B.

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Nov 6, 2011
372
33
81
Las Vegas, NV
I'm soon going to sell my beloved Steyr AUG (5.56 NATO) to raise money for a new DTA rifle and a few barrels, mags & bolts.

After a few years (and no new wars to delay the new cartridge) I hope the new NATO cartridge will be along the lines of the 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 for greater lethality at greater ranges than the 5.56/.223 Rem. NATO round. Then I'll get a new semi-auto rifle.

(1.) So what do you want to see in this new cartridge? (Is the 6.5 more accurate and more lethal at longer ranges?)

(2.) What new weapon would you prefer for this new round? (I want the long barrel Remington ACR.)
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

5.56... It'd be stupidly expensive to do anything else and most NATO countries are broke.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

There might be bullets out there superior to the 5.56, but the 5.56 is already in production and ready to go now. We already have stockpiles of it. The military won't replace the 5.56 until we have something that offers such a advantage we have to take it.

... like lasers, but even then it will be a 5.56 laser that was retro-fitted to the current-issue rifles.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Welll... we replaced the 7.62/M14 with the M-16 and NATO followed
with their own rifles. Maybe a new 6 mm, 6.5 mm or 6.8 mm cartridge can be "retrofitted" to their rifles with no more than re-barrelling, leaving bolt heads and magazines the same (with a possible magazine follower change).

By now a high percentage of NATO and U.S. rifles ae getting older and will need replacement/refitting anyway.

And the M4 carbine has so underpowered an already marginal cartridge that all of them need to be replaced.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

It makes sense for all the planes/trains/automobiles in the US arsenal to burn JP8... and it make sense for all the pistols to be the same (shooting the same pill) and make sense for all the rifles to have the same round.

Is that a possibility...dunno?
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Why does it matter to you and your personal weapon selection what NATO is using anyhow? Even if they were to shift, it's not like surplus ammunition would be available on the cheap anytime soon.

Also, 5.56 isn't going anywhere anytime soon. While there's always something better, it works, it's cheap, and it's in stock now. Bean counters pick weapons, not warriors.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

As long as the enemy has AK's in 5.45 and 7.62x39 we are still ahead of the curve.

Again its a matter of money we dont have and neither does anybody else. By that standard the field is still favored in our direction.

And what pray tell do you mean by marginal? Compared to what? What enemy of ours is fielding anything better?

Its great to have stimulating conversations from the comfort of our homes but at the end of the day its not practical to change the 556. We cant afford fuel for our planes and ships so untill we can get that figured out who cares what the next greatest super round will be.

IF we were to update anything lets ditch that POS Beretta.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

As others have said - pretty much all the member states in NATO are on the edge of bankruptcy and have severe difficulty maintaining their own defence needs/commitments, let alone worrying about reinventing the wheel and replacing (or converting) milions of weapons in a new calibre.

Personally, I believe 7.62 and 5.56 supplies will long outlast my need for cheap surplus ammunition, availability of commercial/factory ammunition or reloading components in these calibres.

After all - I have no problem feeding my .303's, my 8x57 or my 30-06 - all of which are long obsolete as military use calibres.

I'd be more worried about choosing a calibre based on the latest (short-lived?) fashion/fad and then find out in short order that something else has come along and i'm out in the cold having to go round the loop again.

So choosing a new calibre for your DTA should not be influenced by any concerns about the long-term availability of 5.56....or whatever may (or may not!) replace it at some indeterminate point in the future.

Go buy a rifle in a calibre that suits both your pocket, availability and performance requirements and shoot the nuts off it!
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Even if NATO or the us were gonna change their round there is a few things to consider...
A) Why does it matter to you? Are you fighting along a NATO force or something?

B) It bost likely be a round that would only require a barrel change and still compatible with 5.56/.223 mags (6.5, .300 BLK, 7.62 WC... Etc etc.)
That means nothing like a 6.8 SPC where there has to be several changes made.

C) It most likely won't happen anytime soon.

D) NATO doesn't do shit without the US being involved so I would keep an eye on the US before I would wait for NATO to hold a press confrence about its new magical round that kills better.
smile.gif
But if it were me, I would get a .300 BLK
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Without limits to the size of mags and constraints of the M4/M16 platform the 7x46 ARC sound like it would fit the bill. Bigger than the 5.56 smaller than 7.62.

All I know is I want a round that has better ballistics than the ones coming back at me.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?
22LR ! Been in use by Israel for many years.
Open land battles can't be won by insurgents, but prolonged urban, can wear down the home front.

A 22lr in the hands of those with discipline an sound tactics, has the ability to demoralize a force.
If you don't believe me ask the Russians about how they did in the first days of Grozny or Makhachkala.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Speaking of .22 rifles, I have a .22 LR Ruger 10/22 in stainless and a bunch of banana clips. Bags of fun to plink with but...
I REALLY love my Ruger 96/22 lever action .22 WRM. That magnum .22 cartridge is about 75% more powerful than the .22 LR.

The newer .22 WRM rounds now come in <span style="font-style: italic">jacketed</span> bullets with polymer tips, holow points or solid tips and in various velocities. Plus the effective range of these new, more aerodynamic .22 mag rounds is far beyond the .22 LR.

So if'n the Roosians come or civilization goes copmpletly to hell in a handbag my wife can use the Ruger 96/22 lever gun and I'll use whatever assualt rifle I have - if I have one when the $hit hits the fan. I don't think armageddon will happen in my lifetime but my well-educated Filipina wife thinks it will when many of the "99%" storm the wealthy gated communities out of total frustration.

But back to current NATO assault rifle caliber. I still have to sell my AUG to afford a DTA rifle. Plus I'm going to sell my HS Precision .300 win mag target rifle to afford an extra barrel, mag & bolt face for the DTA. And then there's the need for a suppressor, a better FFP milradian reticle-&-turret scope, etc.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

If it happen's, I'd guess it would be 300blk, based on versatility and simpler conversion. 6.5gren has preferable ballistics, but doesn't have the suppressed capability and requires barrel & bolt changes as well as new mags. 300Blk just requires a barrel change and subsonic capabilities.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

If you understand why the 5.56 NATO was selected as a replacement for the 308, then it should be obvious no replacement is needed. Until some quantum leap forward is created, the 223REM/5.56 is more than adequate. Caseless ammo would be an example of a quantum leap. The 223REM is the most widely used round in the western world. Here are some reasons why it is so ideal for the modern infantryman:
1. Super light and compact, can carry 3x the ammo vs 308WIN
2. Uber-accurate out to 600 yards
3. Very light recoil, perfect for novice shooters, sustained precision fire, and full-auto.
4. Very easy on barrels: 10K+ rounds is no problem
6. Gets the job done on personnel: 3-4x the muzzle energy of a 9mm pistol.
7. Finally, plenty of other rounds are available for special purposes: 308WIN, 300WM, 50BMG. The 5.56 is still the champ for most purposes.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

The US will not deviate from the 5.56 for the main combat rifle cartridge any time in the immediate future. The Army is currently testing replacement rifles, and all contenders are 5.56. When you look at the logistical supply chain and all associated components needed, be they armoring tools, or the equipment at the Lake City Ammo plant run by ATK, the cost of changing calibers would be extremely expensive and a logistical nightmare. Instead, continued development of the cartridge is what will keep it feasible. Other cartridges for specialty use have their place.

Would switching to a heavier round be better? Yes.
Would switching to another round be feasible? No.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BasraBoy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd be more worried about choosing a calibre based on the latest (short-lived?) fashion/fad and then find out in short order that something else has come along and i'm out in the cold having to go round the loop again.</div></div>

Winner Winner Chikcen Dinner!
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

I don't know if you would consider this an answer to your question or just more info, but here goes.

Both the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds have undergone a number of changes in the past few years and the new rounds are quite improved. In a nutshell, they've extended the usable range of both, increased the barrier effectiveness, improved overall accuracy, and changed the propellant formula to keep things much more stable across multiple lot numbers while decreasing the affects of temperature on the rounds. I've copied a few bullets from the 4 May 2011 M855A1 EPR brief.

The improved 5.56 round is called the M855A1 EPR (enhanced performance round) and here's some info on it.

"Dramatically improves hard target performance

• Provides improved, consistent effects against soft targets and CQB performance
• Significantly increases range of consistent effects against soft targets
• “Match” like accuracy – VERY ACCURATE
• No weight increase, improved propellant, reduced flash
• Trajectory Match but confirm zero
• Significant performance improvements in a 5.56mm
&#8722; Superior than 7.62mm ball against soft targets
&#8722; Hard target performance (steel) superior than 7.62mm ball
• Extremely effective against ALL target sets (a true, general purpose round)
• Lead free projectile"

If there's interest I can also post the 7.62 updates.

Cheers
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RonboF117</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know if you would consider this an answer to your question or just more info, but here goes.

Both the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rounds have undergone a number of changes in the past few years and the new rounds are quite improved. In a nutshell, they've extended the usable range of both, increased the barrier effectiveness, improved overall accuracy, and changed the propellant formula to keep things much more stable across multiple lot numbers while decreasing the affects of temperature on the rounds. I've copied a few bullets from the 4 May 2011 M855A1 EPR brief.

The improved 5.56 round is called the M855A1 EPR (enhanced performance round) and here's some info on it...

"Dramatically improves hard target performance

• Provides improved, consistent effects against soft targets and CQB performance
• Significantly increases range of consistent effects against soft targets
• “Match” like accuracy – VERY ACCURATE
• No weight increase, improved propellant, reduced flash
• Trajectory Match but confirm zero
• Significant performance improvements in a 5.56mm
&#8722; Superior than 7.62mm ball against soft targets
&#8722; Hard target performance (steel) superior than 7.62mm ball
• Extremely effective against ALL target sets (a true, general purpose round)
• Lead free projectile"

If there's interest I can also post the 7.62 updates.

Cheers
</div></div>

I read an article about the M855A1 some time ago but have not hear about any updates to the 7.62 NATO I would be interested in hearing about it.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: krm375</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has anyone read the article Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer? Its interesting reading but was written in 2009. There have been a lot of improvements to guns and ammo since then.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA512331
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">German research conducted during and after World War I revealed that most infantry engagements occurred within 400 meters and the long-range capability of the standard 7.92-mm rifle cartridge was generally wasted.25 During World War II, the Germans succeeded in producing the most significant small arms development of the entire war with the StG44 “Sturmgewehr” assault rifle. The StG44 fired the new 7.92 x 33-mm kurz cartridge, with a 123-grain bullet fired at 2,340 feet per second. This gave the rifle an effective range of about 300 meters.</div></div>

That is pretty much exactly 300 BLK.

The best overall solution is 300 BLK for general use, and 308 for when one wants more range and is willing to accept the weight.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Stoner was advised of the requirement to use ball powder for ammunition production, but he failed to use it while developing the cartridge. Ball type propellant is better for mass production of cartridges because it meters more accurately into the case. The problem with this type of propellant is that ts combustion produces more residue and higher temperatures. In the case of the AR15, that residue and higher temperature combustion moves from the gas port in the barrel to the bolt carrier, to cycle the action. This high heat burns off any lubrication, and combined with powder residue, increases the rate of malfunctions. </div></div>

That is the common perception, but the actual problem was that the ball propellent used had too much calcium carbonate and it clogged the gas tube. The solution was not to eliminate ball propellant, but to sort it into two grades - one for the M14 (WC846), and one for the M16 (WC844).

 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

I think they would be mote likely to switch to a heavier bullet in 5.56 before they do a full swap. Probably up the weight to 69 grains.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Germany and Britain are pretty much the only two countries in Europe with any money, and the Brits only got their money by slashing the military budget.
Canada has some money, and the US is in Recession.

If you had to ask me, the next generation of munitions won't be Kinetic, but more like explosives, like the airburst grenades on the XM-25, or FRAG-12 shotgun shells. Military guys already have things to put holes in other people with, as do the enemy. They'd want something the enemy doesn't have and therefore provide them with a much greater tactical advantage.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rsilvers</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: krm375</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Has anyone read the article Taking Back the Infantry Half Kilometer? Its interesting reading but was written in 2009. There have been a lot of improvements to guns and ammo since then.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA512331
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">German research conducted during and after World War I revealed that most infantry engagements occurred within 400 meters and the long-range capability of the standard 7.92-mm rifle cartridge was generally wasted.25 During World War II, the Germans succeeded in producing the most significant small arms development of the entire war with the StG44 “Sturmgewehr” assault rifle. The StG44 fired the new 7.92 x 33-mm kurz cartridge, with a 123-grain bullet fired at 2,340 feet per second. This gave the rifle an effective range of about 300 meters.</div></div>

That is pretty much exactly 300 BLK.

The best overall solution is 300 BLK for general use, and 308 for when one wants more range and is willing to accept the weight. </div></div>

Too heavy, too much recoil.

I think a better choice would be 6.5x46 for DMRs, 7x46 for belted ammunition, and 6x35 for everyone else. One DM per fire team, LMGs at the squad level and 6mm submachineguns for everyone else. My brother scratched out an MTOE based on this but I don't have a copy.

The best part is that the rifle and SAW do NOT take the same ammunition. Shit, I would use a 70gr bullet loaded out (you'd need a longer feed tray) in the SAW now if it were to undergo a PIP. And delete the magazine feed option.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

If you are interested in owning the next NATO cartridge, I would recommend waiting for one to be adopted.

If you just want a more exciting chambering capable of greater range and lethality, the 6.5 Grendel seemed to make a lot of sense.

I would expect 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm NATO to soldier on.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Remoah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Germany and Britain are pretty much the only two countries in Europe with any money, and the Brits only got their money by slashing the military budget.
Canada has some money, and the US is in Recession.

If you had to ask me, the next generation of munitions won't be Kinetic, but more like explosives, like the airburst grenades on the XM-25, or FRAG-12 shotgun shells. Military guys already have things to put holes in other people with, as do the enemy. They'd want something the enemy doesn't have and therefore provide them with a much greater tactical advantage. </div></div>

I bet the XM25 is going to the wayside with the defense budget cuts. The recession should hurt the $1000 per round weapon.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

The XM25 ammunition is supposed to be only slightly more than 40mm M320 grenades when full scale production opens. My concern, though, is that it apparently isn't very powerful.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RyanScott</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The XM25 ammunition is supposed to be only slightly more than 40mm M320 grenades when full scale production opens. My concern, though, is that it apparently isn't very powerful. </div></div>

Supposed to be was what Northrop Grumman told the government on the B2 stealth bomber.

Don't expect supposed to be, to actually happen in a contract agreement on an experimental new defense technology.

I agree, the 40mm grenades are weak, and the same problem will probably be the case with the XM25 rounds.

In lieu of a better explosive compound (something unknown) in order to have more explosive power, the round needs to have more explosive in it (larger size).

I watched a guy try to "trap" a target with a MK19 once. The guy fired an RPG ~310meters out (corner of a building), and the gunner was already zeroed on the spot where the firer was (locked in on a T&E/sandbagged tripod).

On the visual of the backblast, he hit the butterflies and the MK-19 started sending 40mm grenades down range.

There was perhaps a 2 second lag between the flash of the RPG to the flash of the first grenade, maybe 3-5meters from the firing location.

5-10 grenades splashed on the spot, and another 55-60 in the vicinity. A patrol sent out found no evidence - blood, body etc of any harm to the firer of the RPG.

The fireworks show was impressive- the lack of any positive BDA was not.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

I love how a couple of the replies just say "what does it matter to you"....

As for the OP's question I'd want a Scar in some kind of 6.5
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Economically speaking, I cannot see the US and NATO going to a new round that wouldn't fit into the existing M16 platform or into the existing M16 magazines.

So I'm going to ASSUME that any "new round" would have to fit into the magazines without any major modifications and be fired from the AR rifles with little or no modifications.

I'm by no means an expert in this but to me it would make sense to utilize the .300 AAC Blackout as 1) you could easily upgrade the AR's to the .300 AAC blackout with a new barrel and 2) utilize the bullets from the 7.62 NATO rounds, and 3) utilize the brass from the .223 Rem to resize them to the .300 AAC Blackout case specifications.

This is all conjecture as we all know that governments don't do anything economically! LOL!

Wasn't the M16 introduced to replace the M1 Garand and M14 because they were so expensive to manufacture, the emphasis on long range proficiency was dropped, and the smaller 5.56 round meant that more rounds could be carried? Assuming that those things are true, then wouldn’t any firearm that replaces the M16 would have to meet that criteria? That’s why I’m voting for the .300 AAC Blackout.

But that’s one person’s opinion.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

I think at the time the need to find a replacement weapon for the M1 and M14, the recoil of the 30-06 and 7.62mm is much greater than the 5.56mm round which does affect how a well soldier might shoot. So another plus for the .300 AAC Blackout is that it has less recoil than a 30-06 or 7.62mm round.

But again, that's just my opinion.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Of course the XM25 is going to falter due to the budget. But so is any prospect of a new round for NATO or the US. Once there is new money to be spent, the XM25 will likely be adopted, especially since they will now have more time for R&D into the project.

All i'm saying is not so much the adoption of a new calibre (which will probably happen sometime). But perhaps the adoption of new munitions first. the Kinetic Energy weapon (ie: the standard round), is old, hundreds of years old in fact. Just like there was the advancement of the cartridge round over the old ball and powder, there will be an advancement from the cartridge.

We had the G11 and it's caseless ammo back in the 60's, whats to say that the next weapon can't fire something similar. Or a rocket propelled projectile (similar to the 'bolter' in warhammer 40k, for anyone that knows it haha), that would have a similar kinetic energy, but wouldn't loose velocity and therefore retain stopping power over a distance.

It's all new science. There's nothing inherently wrong with the 5.56, it still kills people, yes, the 300BLK might be a stop-gap option and be devestating in close-quarters, but at the same time, it's ballistics are nothing compared to the 5.56, soldiers would need to account for bullet drop a hell of a lot more, something that is not always possible in fast-moving combat environments

I'm not speaking from experience or anything. I have none of that. But at the current time, the 7.62 and 5.56 are both performing at an adequate level, this isn't vietnam where soldiers were using M14's for close-quarters combat against an enemy armed with a (let's face it) better weapon; the AK-47.
This is the Middle East (mainly). We HAVE a weapon for killing the enemy at extended ranges in the 7.62mm, and we have a weapon that is adequate at close and medium ranges, that outpaces the AK-47's at longer-ranged combat, ie: the M16/M4 in 5.56mm

you could spend millions of dollars doing barrel and upper refurbs to turn the current AR-15 platforms into 6.5/.300/.270 platforms, for arguably little gain (think red-jacket here guys). Or you could use the money to develop something truly game-changing, like the XM-25, which is, when you think about it; a truly scary weapon.

Lecture: Over.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Remoah</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's all new science. There's nothing inherently wrong with the 5.56, it still kills people, yes, the 300BLK might be a stop-gap option and be devestating in close-quarters, but at the same time, it's ballistics are nothing compared to the 5.56, soldiers would need to account for bullet drop a hell of a lot more, something that is not always possible in fast-moving combat environments </div></div>

You make great points.

The .300BLK makes great sense for SOF as a submachine gun replacement that bridges the gap between 9mm and 5.56mm by virtue of subsonic and supersonic velocity at the change of a magazine.

More velocity is better for standard infantry rifles, because flatter trajectories and lower time of flight will result in more hits in a gunfight. So for regular forces 5.56mm makes more sense.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

7mm CTA type round based on the ballistic performance of the 7x46 ARC.

Weight savings from evolving past the brass casing, a flater shooting more effective round than 5.56mm, and obsoletes the need for 7.62x51 NATO.

.300BK is a short range subsonic round, unless Robert decided to look into a 90-110gr TSX round for the supersonic applications
wink.gif


However I think a 6mm CTA PDW system would be a better answer -- no one is going to adopt a new brass case round as 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO are so prevalent.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

They aren't swapping from the 5.56 anytime soon, just ordered a bunch of heavier barrels to change from the M4 profile, and new 556 ammo.
There have been several bids let for 7.62x39 ARs from special groups.

Can't understand why the 7.62x39 has always been considerd a poor performer then they come out with a 300BLK that is even slower than the x39 and it's now thought of by some as great...The Bcs of the light 30cal bullets are even worse than the .277 bullets

Depends on where the next war is(where ever the oil is would be my guess), the terrain will dictate what kind of cartridge is needed for special groups that actually fight the rest will retain the 5.56 IMO

Someone is working on a 7mm gpmg
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Yeah the new round will be M-855A1. With the economy sucking all over I do not see a massive change in the service rifle or ammo coming any time soon.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KevinB-KAC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">.300BK is a short range subsonic round, unless Robert decided to look into a 90-110gr TSX round for the supersonic applications
wink.gif

</div></div>

It can kick butt when used as normal ammo. By M4 standard, it has a 440 meter max effective range from a 9 inch barrel.

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011...igun-nationals/

Yes, this is the commercial/hunting/self-defense/LE barrier-blind load - and there will also be a land-warefare legal barrier blind load later in 2012.

I have about 9 more loads in development.

300aacblk110grbarnessma.jpg


300-Blackout-1-400.jpg


300aacblkbarriersummary.jpg
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bustin</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Can't understand why the 7.62x39 has always been considerd a poor performer ...</div></div>

I was not aware the 7.62x39mm was considered a poor performer for an assault rifle cartridge. Seriously, I did not know that - I was under the impression it was a great assault rifle cartridge - though I did always know there were not great bullets made for it. That is one of the things we are taking care of for 300 BLK - great bullets.

-$12.99 MSRP a box.
-Crimped.
-Waterproof primer.
-Double-struck (NATO hardness) brass.
-Open Tip match (nose struck closed).
-About a 0.300 BC at 2295 fps.


374750_262316480481481_203519439694519_767459_1415306112_n.jpg
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

I would like to know more about the 300 AAC blackout. I am hearing more and more about this cartridge. Can anyone direct me to where I can read more on this round?
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Caseless ammo might (notice the word might) reduce costs and round weight. New/newer 556 projectiles will probably keep the 556 AR platform going until caseless or some other game changer gets deployed.

My $0.05 worth.
smile.gif
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

As far as a replacement goes thats really up to the bad guys on the other side to use something more then russian/chinese/soviet bloc surplus weapons.

Right now the 5.56 fits the bill to do the job and for many years to come.

The 5.56 7.62x51 and the .50BMG have all been in service for at least half a century. The rounds have been improved apon but more importantly the weapons that utilize them have seen many changes for the better.

All my guns are chambered in 5.56, .308, 45ACP, 9MM, and .50DTC (only due to CA gun laws). So everything is chambered in a round that is availible all over and for cheap aside from the DTC.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: krm375</div><div class="ubbcode-body">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.8×42mm_DBP87

What is the word on the Chinese using this 5.8x42 round, better performance than the 5.56x45 and the russian 5.45x39. </div></div>

Not too mch to add that the webpage states. They are now making a brass cassing for better accuracy. I have read it was for snipers and maybe DM personal.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

Great read. I love the speculation about possible ammo changes. I agree with the majority about the 5.56 not changing anytime soon as the general use round. Personally I would love to see a .416 case necked down to a .308. I think with a high bc (Steel w/ lead core)bullet that would scream for days. barrel life would suck most likely.
 
Re: What's the successor cartridge to the 5.56 NATO?

I'll predict the future for everyone if it ever comes true I'll start playing the lottery.

I think if anything has a chance it's the .300BLK. If its not that then it would be similar to the .300BLK but have a 6.5mm projectile. No change but the barrel. Better Ballistics and a little more ass behind it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Islas82
Ruger American gen 2 options for new “plinking” bolt gun
Replies
10
Views
543
Jmccracken1214
Jmccracken1214
Milirad
Ballistics Comparison Chart For AR10/AR15 Cartridge and Barrel Length Options
Replies
9
Views
796
Charmingmander
Charmingmander
T
What cartridge?
Replies
7
Views
365
Mike_in_FL
Mike_in_FL
bigjake83
Precision Armament 5.56 EFAB Hybrid Muzzle Device review.
Replies
3
Views
721
oldrifleman
oldrifleman
S
What about FN .264 LICC?
Replies
132
Views
8K
WindstormSCR
WindstormSCR
Top Bottom
Back