PROBLEMS with M27 IAR with M855A1, USMC Generals Walsh and Shrader Testify to Congress

USMC Photo

In recent testimony to Congress, USMC leadership Lieutenant General Robert Walsh and Brigadier General Joseph Shrader officially acknowledged that the USMC’s M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, made by Heckler & Koch, encounters durability issues when used with the US Army’s new M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round. The testimony is transcribed below:

Senator Rounds: During the – uh, either for General Walsh or Mr. Garner – during the full committee as well as the Airland Subcommittee testimony Army leadership and outside experts have cast doubt on the ability of the 5.56 rounds ability to penetrate modern composite body armor that is proliferating at an alarming rate. We’re concerned that Marine Infantry units could find the standard issue M4A1 ineffective, which, naturally, we would consider to be wholly unacceptable. How closely is the Marine Corps working with the Army in terms of fielding a new round that can penetrate enemy body armor and is there a strategy in place to accomplish this and if so please provide an update.

Lt. Gen. Walsh: We are, we’ve been after this for quite a while with the Army trying to – and Congress has pushed this direction to, to find a common round with the Army and just as you said we’re seeing more body armor wherever Marines and soldiers are deployed. More of it, and better quality, or better capability. So, the rounds that we currently have are M855 rounds, we have been in the process of looking at a SOCOM round, the [Mk.] 318A1, along with the M855A1 that the Army is using. We’ve been testing with them now for well over a year, trying to figure out the best round to go with. Indications are that we’re trying to go in the direction that the Army is – in fact right now our Marines that are deployed into Afghanistan with our weapons are using the Army round. So, there’s a lot of good reason to have commonality. The good news with that round, and with both rounds actually, much more capable and specifically the Army 855A1 much better at penetrating armor and along with personal armor protection. So, that’s a good reason to go with that, we have to work through a lot of things with our own weapons. The M4, our M27s, our IAR – Infantry Advanced Weapon (sic) – and along with our M16s. We’re working through some of the reliability things we’re learning in testing, but we’l make some adjustments with that and in the end I think our Marines will have a much better capability when we’re done with it.

Senator Rounds: So, you believe you’re moving in the right direction, with regards to the new-

Lt. Gen. Walsh: I do sir, and not only that, we’re looking with the Army at another weapon that would give us increased capability for our Marines to include a higher caliber weapon. And if you don’t mind, I’d like to let General Shrader, who knows a bit more about the testing of the 5.56 if he has time for that.

Brig. Gen. Shrader: So, sir, General Walsh is referring to the testing that we’ve been doing with the Army on the EPR round, which is their advanced round, which is the M855A1 round. That’s the one we’ve heard a lot about the Marine Corps and the Army having working toward. The testing that we’re doing is that round has had some durability – it causes some durability issues for our new Infantry Automatic Rifle that we fielded, the M27. The testing will be complete by July of this year, and along with performance and specifically stopping power, effect on the durability of that weapons system, the ancillary equipment like the Rifle Combat Optic – it has a flatter trajectory than the round we currently have – and also training facilities. That round requires a larger surface danger area that we have to take into account for our ranges. So those four areas are what we’re looking at for testing to inform us how we’ll go forward.

[emphasis mine]

The M27 was adopted by the Marine Corps in the 2010 as a replacement for the problematic belt-fed M249 Squad Automatic Weapon then in use. In that same year, the M855A1 was adopted by the US Army after several years of development, replacing the former M855 round used by both the Army and Marine Corps. However, Marine Corps testing showed some initial problems with the new round, especially in their M27 IARs. The round produced higher chamber pressure than the previous M855, and its exposed steel tip caused damage over time to the feedways of existing weapons, especially the tighter forcing cones of M27s. The higher gas port pressure also caused early unlocking which put additional stress on M27 bolts and shortened their lifespan. Over the next seven years, the Army incrementally improved the round in part to improve compatiblity with Marine Corps weapons. However, the M27/M855A1 combination remains a sub-optimal one, and an obstacle to the USMC’s acceptance of the Army round.





Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Major Tom

    And which durability issue was that? The same as M4s and M4A1s not liking M855A1 initially owing to crappy magazines and an easily worn out feed system?

    • Malthrak

      The issue isnt that the M4 and M4A1 having crappy magazines and feed ramps, the work just fine for ammunition they were designed for.

      M855A1 uses different materials that the parts in these guns weren’t intended to deal with, has different pressures and pressure curves, and there isnt a single rifle out there that M855A1 does not damage and put extreme wear on. Not the M4, not the HK416, not the ACR, not the ARX160, or the Adcore BEAR, or other rifles according to Army testing. Rifles are designed around their ammunition, if you make changes to that ammunition, problems can result that arent inherently the fault of the rifle, as we’ve seen countless times before.

      • Joshua

        Did you know, they have these magical devices that feed the rounds at the proper angle called the enhanced performance magazine and the Magpul Pmag?

        The M4A1 was recently tested by SOCOM with only M855A1 and we’re still getting 10,000 rounds on the bolt before they break.

        Usually closer to 13,000 actually.

        • ostiariusalpha

          Mal is more concerned about there being no gas system optimized for the M855A1, rather than the feed angle.

          • Joshua

            The M4A1 does fine with M855A1.

          • ostiariusalpha

            I’d say it does as well, nonetheless, there might be some room for slight adjustments to accommodate the longer pressure curve of the round. I don’t think you would need to go to a mid-length gas system, but a little further out would make the port pressure more ideal.

        • RSG

          They aren’t talking about the bolt. It’s the feed ramps. But you knew that already.

          • Joshua

            The Army has the EPM and we have Pmags.

            Problem solved.

            The M27 has a whole host of other issues with 855A1.

        • Malthrak

          Yeah now they do, which required a redesign of a substantial part of the firearm (the magazine) to use the new cartridge.

          The issue isnt that M4’s weren’t feeding at “proper” angle, it’s that the M855A1 is made of materials that damage the rifle when used in its original design and they had to *change* the feed angle, and then go back and make changes to the M855A1 to fix the pressure issues that destroyed every gun it was put in.

          My ultimate point was that blaming the gun for problems with new ammunition is absurd, the gun was designed for a specific type of ammunition, and as the US military seems to find with every weapon they use, magically when they make major changes to ammunition, the guns dont function properly and they then have to make adjustments. Happened with the m16 in Vietnam, the M9 when it was first introduced (resulting in Beretta suing the gov and winning a substantial sum for damage to their reputation) and others.

          • Joshua

            The only lots that had issues were early 2010-2012 lots. Since then M855A1 has had no issues in legacy systems.

            And yet the M27 still has a whole host of issues when using 855A1.

            The M4A1 just eats that round up currently with no issues.

          • Malthrak

            Which goes back to the issue that these system were designed for a specific round (or group of rounds) and dont necessarily function when radical changes are made to the ammuniton. The M27 has some major design element changes from the M4, and thus what fixes the M4 wont necessarily fix the M27. The Marines werent originally looking to adopt M855A1 and the M27 usage predates it, and thus, issues arise that arent necessarily the fault of the gun.

          • Joshua

            And this is what happens when a relatively small section of the military(compared to the combined numbers of the Army/Navy/Airforce) decides to do their own thing.

            They tried to circumvent the process and get a new Carbine shoehorned in, and now it’s not working out for them because big Army developed a round that works in the gun that every other branch uses….except for the Marine Corps lone M27.

          • Malthrak

            To some extent sure, but at the same time the M27 worked fine with the ammunition that was available and standardized at the time it was brought into use, same way the M4 did.

            The army then developed a round that worked well in no gun.

            They had to go back and reeingineer a major component of the M4 (the magazine, in addition to extensive pressure changes to the cartridge itself) to get the M855A1 to work properly in the M4. Other weapons have different design elements and will require different solutions to function with the M855A1.

            Yeah, having multiple weapons creates issues, absolutely, but lets not make it out like the M855A1 didn’t require major engineering efforts to all existing firearms to get it to work right either.

            It also didnt help that the Army was uncooperative in releasing technical data about the M855A1 to manufacturers until after just about everything that’s currently on the market had already been designed with other specifications in mind.

          • Joshua

            I wouldn’t call backing off the powder charge slightly a major thing. It’s very minor in the big scheme and reduced the rounds effective fragmentation range from 600M to 500M out of a 14.5″ barrel.

            As for the magazine, also not a major issue.

            The GI mag has never had an ideal bullet presentation angle in relation to the chamber location.

            This is apparent in the need for the M4 feed ramp cuts in the receiver.

            The EPM is honestly the first actually designed well GI mag.

            The EPM is what the GI mag should have been from the beginning of the 30 round GI mag.

            However I wouldn’t call fixing the GI mag a major engineering effort.

            Now, having to completely redesign the gas system, chamber face of the barrel, and bolt….now that is a major engineering effort…and that is what the M27 faces, even with new magazines.

            It also needs to be said, the HK was not the most durable rifle in the IAR trials, it was just the most M4 like rifle submitted.

            Every 416 entered in the IAR trial broke during testing, however it still maintained the required MRBEFF in order to be downselected.

          • Malthrak

            The M4 feed ramps were introduced for two reasons. First, so Colt could claim enough deviation (coupled with the H buffer) to make it distinct from the M16 TDP for contract purposes, one or the other would have sufficed (and does for many other nations with their AR15 based weapons).

            Second, from the original engineering perspective, was because of changes to the gas system in the 14.5″ carbine barrel and gas system and pressure increases resulting in faster cycling rates than the 20″ Rifle length M16, with feeding issues experienced as a result that did not occur in 20″ rifles using the same ammuniton.

            Magazine and powder changes may not be earth shattering ground up redesigns, but they are not minor changes either and took years and lots of resources to analyze the issues and develop and implement a solution, a solution only necessary for M855A1 and of no practical benefit with other types of ammuniton. Look what ball powder alone did to the M16 in Vietnam.

            As the the 416’s durability, there are absolutely points to be made against it, but making it out like the M855A1 hasn’t had major functionality issues that required or would require engineering changes to every firearm they want to stick it in, and just blaming the weapons for all the problems with the M855A1, is hardly accurate or fair.

            No gun has worked with M855A1 correctly without modification to a critical operating component.

          • “No gun has worked with M855A1 correctly without modification to a critical operating component.”

            Huh? The M16 and M4 have.

          • Joshua

            He’s putting to much emphasis on magazines being a critical operating component.

          • Malthrak

            Do we not consider magazines a critical operating component?

          • I guess I wouldn’t consider them a core operating component. In the sense that they are not an integral part. Yes, they are a critical operating component in the sense that they need to function properly to make the gun work.

            However, the M27 still does not agree with M855A1 even with good mags.

          • Joshua

            I know why the M4 feed ramps were developed.

            However as I said had the GI mag had a proper bullet presentation angle from the get go it never would have been needed.

            Early lots of 855A1 were loaded hot, no one denies that.

            I just question the amount of emphasis you put on the magazine being so critical of a change.

            There existed COTS magazines that had we adopted 8 years ago we wouldn’t even be discussing how much of a massive engineering overhaul modifying the GI mag for 855A1 is.

            I can’t think of any other gun I’ve seen tested with 855A1 that the only change it needs is a new magazine.

            Every gun I’ve seen will need massive changes to key components like the bolt, barrel, and gas system.

            The M4 only needed a modified magazine to negate the issues.

          • Malthrak

            Ill grant that the M4 has had the least required effort to resolve the issues with the M855A1, that would be a fair statement, but at the same time the M4 is also what the Army was designing the M855A1 for, thus, that it’s the easiest to modify to get it to work shouldnt be surprising.

            Likewise, a feed angle change (as opposing to something like introducing antitilt followers or polymer bodies) is a big thing with respect to the internal mechanical operation of the weapon. Not as big as issues with the 416, but there’s a reason it took over half a decade to introduce the new magazine after M855A1 first went into combat.

          • Kivaari

            The M27 has a 16.5 inch barrel. That should give a little boost in performance without being too big as has been the complaint with the M16s.

          • James Kachman

            ‘It’s very minor in the big scheme and reduced the rounds effective fragmentation range from 600M to 500M out of a 14.5″ barrel.”

            Do you have a source for that? I’ve been very curious to find hard data on the fragmentation range, not that I don’t believe you.

            Edit: For posterity, the M80A1 round has been proven to fragment as low as 1929 fps. The M855A1, with a G1 rated BC of .307, and a muzzle velocity of 2970fps from an M4, should *still* fragment at 375 yards, or 342 meters. This is assuming the fragmentation velocities are the same, and that 1929fps is the slowest the construction will fragment at, neither of which are necessarily the case.

          • Kivaari

            Until recently I’ve always said that the US military was too cheap when it came to buying magazines. From the .30 M2 30 rd mags, M1911, M14 and M9, they have bought low bid junk.

          • Kivaari

            That seems to be true. The M27 really could not replace the M249, but it was a substitute for the M4 the Marines really wanted.

          • Warren Ellis

            People keep on saying the M27 IAR was an attempt to get a new carbine in but haven’t the Marines already decided upon the M4A1 as their standard carbine anyways?

            I thought the purpose of the M27 was because M249s are so damn heavy to tote around whereas M27s are lighter and thus can be used as a pseudo-SAW to get rounds closer/more accurately to the target because many of the enemies we’ve been fighting in Afghanistan & Iraq aren’t the type to be easily scared by inaccurate suppression fire?

            TLDR: Suppressive fire has to be close enough and accurate enough to actually suppress the enemy. M249s can throw out more bullets at a higher rate of fire but their weight causes shooter fatigue and makes it harder to set them up quickly for suppressive fire, thus leading to bullets flying but not flying close enough to scare the enemy?

          • Joshua

            Back in 2010….I think, the Marine Corps actually looked into pure fleeting the M27 and found it to expensive and that it would have taken close to 20 years to finish.

            It was an attempt to get a replacement to the M16 from the get go.

            Kind of like how the Marines refuse to get on the M4A1 contract the Army has, instead choosing to use the M4 and then complaining the M4 doesn’t have full auto capability like the M27…..

          • lowell houser

            Joshua, I tend to think it was about the politics of the possible. The M27 had the potential to replace everything in inventory IF -BIG upper case IF – it had to, like say if a Democrat had won in 2016 and the Corps was stuck with that reality for another decade. Once they had SOMETHING, bureaucratic inertia could have cemented it in and the Corps would have something like what it wanted. But now it doesn’t have to.

            Now everything’s up for grabs.

    • No, the durability issues are unique to the M27 and caused by the gas system and unique forcing cone design.

      • Major Tom

        In which way? I’m curious.

        • Joshua

          Reduction in bolt life below that of the M4.

          Reduced reliability.

          Damage to the chamber leading to detonated rifles.

          And other issues specific to the M27.

          • Joshua’s got it.

          • Anonymoose

            Would using different barrels and an easier-to-adjust gas system help that?

          • Joshua

            Not easily.

            A lot of the issues come from the pressure curves of SMP-842.

          • James Kachman

            The barrel itself is actually quite good, M27s generally have a higher barrel life due to the excellence of the steel used. The issue with M855A1 is endemic to the nature of the gas piston being used, and the “hotter” nature of EPR.

          • mosinman

            of course if the M4s and M16s could be given barrels with the same quality of steel you could see a vast improvement in performance in the M-4/M-16

          • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

            Using a good old DGI AR I bet would do the trick…

          • n0truscotsman

            hahaha, which is what I’ve been arguing from the beginning, and something they *certainly* couldve and shouldve done.

          • Kivaari

            You might post that photo link showing the chamber again. It really shows the issue.

          • Joshua
          • James Kachman

            I’m so happy this picture exists. But are the chamber issues so readily prevalent there due simply to poor feeding, or due to the more violent nature of the action? I see it’s with EPM.

          • Joshua

            The chamber gouging can be fixed by new barrels using a new chamber design.

            This is but one of the issues facing the M27.

            This kind of gouging happens if a few thousand rounds on the M27, and HK barrels are not cheap.

          • Kivaari

            The HK feed ramps are wider and nearly vertical on the outer edges. The others are angled, forcing the cartridge towards the center of the chamber. It looks like a simple fix.

          • Joshua

            It looks like a simple fix until you realize they supply the same barrel/extension to multiple countries and would need to adjust for every time they made a barrel for the M27.

            That means one machine tied up to make barrels and extensions for the Marine Corps.

            Now you get into a lot of money due to labor and other things for something that could be fixed.

            Then the Marines would have to have a way to designate which ones have the new, or old barrels, etc.

            It’s anything but an easy fix.

            Then you still have issues with reduced reliability and reduced parts life across the board with the M27 firing 855A1.

          • Kivaari

            There is some take down time to replace the barrel extension. That”s the only part that needs replacing. All new production could easily incorporate the advanced angles. You might find that not all of them need it. Changing the barrel chamfer would greatly assist.

          • Joshua

            All the M27s would need it.

            They would also have to submit design changes to every government entity that uses their guns to just do a whole entire change.

            Imagine being the French who just bought the gun and having HK come to you and say we need to change the barrel extension and chamber design on future and current guns.

            The gun then has to go through an entire new battery of tests to verify and prove the new changes do not hinder reliability and durability.

            It’s way more complicated than you imagine to push through a TDP change than you could ever imagine.

          • Kivaari

            Agreed, the process is complex, the fix is easy.

          • romney2011

            I was on my own from 6 years of age; dad died. I stayed in woods huge amounts of time. Hunting, studying nature, building game plots, shooting. I am not firearms expert. Very pro 2 amend. BUT…I am so tired of all the reasons why American “can’t” do this and that. During WW II a designer contracted to build cargo ships incredibly fast. Can’t remember quantity. For 50 years now all I hear is we can’t do this or that for some dumbass reason; technology, politics, PC, money, etc. etc. Is there anything America can do anymore? America CAN produce, lazy, ignorant, greedy, graft-ridden, corrupt, anti-patriotic sons of bitches. From welfare to wealthy, from dog catcher to White House, from foot soldier to general. SHIT!
            Invention, true capitalism, patriotism are almost extinct. Small companies can design and build and produce great products. Oh hell, now I am off on a tear! Most of the problems today in the world are from governments. I know things don’t run well in disorganization and even anarchy, but ………the base problem is greed, corruption, loss of giving a shit about anyone else. Government and/or private entities kill unknown people by unmeasurable numbers with no responsibility or consequences. Better get back to the basics and the right weapon for the right cause WILL appear.

      • Flounder

        I did not see that anywhere in this article? But i remember there being something special about the M27 barrel.

        What is discussed here is only the negative effects of exposed penetrators. In ammo I mean.

  • Barrett S

    No surprise here, EPR is hot hot hot and very rough on the guns. When the Army started fielding it I was at the AFSAM international match and everyone was issued it to use for the competition so we could give our feedback on it. We brought our M16A4s to use for the comp for a little extra edge on the long range stages…by the end of the week all our feed ramps were pitted and mangled because of how hard that tungsten carbide tip is. Not to mention all ACOGs in inventory no longer have a properly calibrated BDC due to the much flatter trajectory. Most recently, I was instructing at a small arms clinic where some of the students had brought their issued suppressed MK18s. Everyone was issued EPR for the week long clinic. The ejection pattern because of the carrier speed induced by EPR was unreal, damn near 12 o’clock ejection. Same result as the initial fielding as well, everyone’s feed ramps were pitted and mangled.

    • No one

      “by the end of the week all our feed ramps were pitted and mangled because of how hard that tungsten carbide tip is.”

      ….What?

      • Joshua

        He’s making crap up to sound cool.

        • RSG

          Why would you say that? Do you have any first hand, extended usage with it? I’ve heard similar things, myself. Seems like an uninformed, nasty comment to make, just for the sake of engaging your pie hole.

          • Joshua

            Yeah I have lot of first hand experience with the round.

            SOCOM is exclusively fielding it as we speak.

            The fact that he said it has a tungsten Carbide tip, yet it is easily verified to be a hardened steel Arrowhead on the internet, across many publicly released forms says he’s making stuff up.

          • RSG

            Except it’s pretty common knowledge that feed ramps are taking a beating.

          • Joshua

            And if you use the new magazines the army is circulating problem solved.

            Or just use pmags.

            The M27 has a whole host of other issues with the round.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Joshua is an ex-commando from the Ninja Squad

          • Joshua

            Unlike comrade sermon who is a couch commando for the 457th basement brigade stationed out of fort mamas house.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Yes.

            I heard about that Operation Earnest Voice, etc. You get instructions, learn some basic terms, and pose as an ex-soldier on forums like this one. You must be eating a cake now, and cookies too.

          • Joshua

            You forgot the milk.

            Can’t tactically engage in cookie eating without milk.

          • Sermon 7.62

            That’s how it is: a fat dude, Joshua, eating cookies with milk, posting comments from 10 accounts.

            Mall-ninja Special Operations QRF

          • Joshua

            To answer your question about where I work and what I guard, I the liutenant of a 3 man Rapid Tactical Force Team, in one of the nation’s largest indoor retail shopping centers. My job job is to defend and protect the lives of the many shoppers who currently vist this center, and in my line of work you cannot be too careful.

          • El Duderino

            Sooo…mall QRF. Just like the guy above you said!

          • Joshua

            We only patrol the roof, maitenance areas, and parking lots with rifles, MP5’s for if TSHTF indoors, and Glock 30’s on our belts. The MP5 is carried discreetly, under the seats of the electric transportation cart, and we only wear BDU’s. It’s not extreme to be prepared and the merchants don’t mind, it keeps the Neonazi gangs and the Crips out of the mall. We did have a “situation”, but such things are easily disguised as, say an evacuation due to a gas leak at one of the restaurants, and the operation of both sides was so well contained, that they almost got wawy with it, and we just managed to bring it to a halt.This is not a fantasy, it is myjob, and if it is too harsh of a reality for you armchair commandos, then get another beer, and change websites, because this is the real wolrd of CQB. I can hack it, can you, I do not think so, and your attempt to make fun of me is lame and childish.

          • HSR47

            So you’re basically saying that you’re Gecko45. Got it.

          • Joshua

            I was going to keep that going as long as I could… :/

          • Don Ward

            Was that your squad during “The Incident” at Hot Topic? We lost a lot of good men that day. Man were we glad to hear the soft electric hum of the golf carts when your stick of door kickers rolled in for the Big Win.

          • n0truscotsman
          • AC97

            How hard was it to save the life, and possibly the virginity of the Mayor’s nephew?

          • Joshua

            It was a hostage situation that was hushed up. The SWAT prettyboys were overpowered by the Gap, and we Backup RTF’ers had to resume our roles, and basically put everything five by five. The takedown was actually applied with SW weapons, SW3’s. It happened a while agao, and there is no way you would know what city I am in, so I can reveal these details, lets just say that the Mayor had really deep pockets to keep all of this out of the news. People aren’t so holy and upstanding when you get out your checkbook, they start to “forget” stuff, at least that what I understood happened.

          • valorius

            LMAO

          • Sermon 7.62

            Like I said, a mall ninja 🙂

          • Joshua

            I am not a ninja, merely a student of the art of Ninjitsu, and I prefer not to have status such as “Ninja” laid upon me, for as yet I am unworthy of the title. I will be completing my ninjisu training in a little over 8 months, and then I will be a Master of Ninjitsu, a true “Ninja”. But it is not my martial arts skills that make me so vital to the security of the mall, it is my tactical and strategic skills honed by years of intens on-site on the job training. My weapons skills are the envy of the squad, and I think that with my expertise I ought to be able to choose an effective and reliab;e weapon for CQC and urban combat, whicch is why I chose SW, the MP5’s are junk comparatively.

          • Kivaari

            If you have HK MP5s, they are not junk. In nearly 50K rounds the only things we replaced were extractor springs and roller retainers.

          • Joshua

            It’s a joke. I suggest you look up and read about gecko45. It’ll all make sense.

          • Kivaari

            OK.

          • Joshua

            Sermon has decided he wants to troll me. That’s fine with me, he’ll get appropriate responses from me.

          • Kivaari

            I looked up gecko45, a long running joke.

          • Joshua

            Gecko45 is a legend on the internet. His story will never die.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I must admit I am impressed with your trolling skills. I can see now what tells a pro from an amateur 🙂

          • Seth Hill
          • Uniform223

            Aww… did someone call out your BS so now you’re trying to turn things around on him. I don’t know Joshua or CommonSense23 personally. Though there are certain things the interwebs cannot teach you. They seem to be very much on point in regards to everything I’ve experienced, know, and heard around.

            You should go outside and play. Grown ups are “chating” here. Don’t forget to apologize to a plant for wasting the oxygen that it is working so hard to create that the rest of us can use.

          • Sermon 7.62
          • Uniform223

            That’s cute. Is your Kremlin handlers giving you a 1 rubel pay raise?

          • Joshua
          • Kivaari

            How did that guy pass the POST physical?

          • Uniform223

            Obvious he is an airsofter…

          • Kivaari

            I think he is a deputy sheriff is some southern state. I saw his picture in a magazine article a few years back about a departments SWAT team. They have all the toys you could ask for and probably pay $8 hour for the cops.

          • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

            If youre fat it just means you have more PALS real estate

          • Joshua

            It’s tactical fat.

          • mosinman

            i like to call it my built in trauma plate

          • Uniform223

            It makes you more suitable for operations extreme cold/arctic environments.

          • mosinman

            Shouldn’t you be educating us about how the military should have adopted 7.62×39 instead of the wimpy 5.56? Everyone knows the M45 cartridge shoots flatter than any 5.56mm and punches through 50mm of RHA steel with a lead core bullet

          • Sermon 7.62

            You mean, the M43 cartridge?
            As far as I remember the Russians been using 5.45 caliber since, like, 1970’s. And it seems to be on par with 5.56

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3cdd52fca234b879841e32a12520aa6c52c516984a080a52726c8f0a761ea3ca.png

          • mosinman

            you missed the sarcasm

          • CommonSense23

            When you get basic facts wrong like tungsten instead of steel. It kind makes people question everything else.

          • Uniform223

            The worse part is that people actually upvoted that diatribe of male bovine fecal matter.

          • Kivaari

            If he was exposed to people like the people I was exposed to in both the Army and Navy, then expect him to pick up inaccurate information. Some of the most gun ignorant people I’ve met were in the service.

          • valorius

            There is no tungsten tip in the M855A1 EPR.

      • Flounder

        He mispoke slightly, or the transcript is erroneous. But it is clear he is talking about the exposed AP tip and how they don’t agree with the feed ramps. NO DUH, since the feed ramps are aluminium.

        It is silly that a general has to explain basic things to congress that they already know about.

        • Joshua

          Except in the M27s case, it’s the chamber that gets chewed up.

          The M27 doesn’t have M4 feed ramps.

    • valorius

      Tungsten tips in M855A1 you say?

      • Warren Ellis

        It’s even more hilarious when in the description above, Nathaniel blatantly says “its exposed steel tip caused damage over time to the feedways of
        existing weapons, especially the tighter forcing cones of M27s.”

  • aldol11

    m16 and derivatives were intended to be cheaper not better
    now they try to get a real gun performance from a toy and it does not stand up to it
    stoner original design was for a 308 not a 223
    besides, the DI is a maintenance nightmare

    • ostiariusalpha

      The M27 isn’t a DI gun, bonehead.

      • aldol11

        because di is a nightmare, they finally figured that out, idiot

        • ostiariusalpha

          The DI system M4 carbines work well with M855A1, the M27 is the problem child. Did you even bother to read the article? Incompetent moron.

          • Joshua

            Good post.

          • AC97

            Got ’em.

          • mosinman

            Ayyyy

        • Porty1119

          *gigglesnort*
          The HK416 is a craptastic system that does nothing special for three or four times the price per rifle.

          • nadnerbus

            But…….! It has a good barrel!

          • ostiariusalpha

            That barrel is lovely. If I had money to burn, I’d buy an MR556 just to rip the barrel out and put on an MForgery.

    • No one

      The gas piston gun that costs 3-4 times more than the DI “toy” gun because if the brand name on it (and you’re utterly clueless if you think the AR-15 was ever designed to be some budget platform) is the one having issues genius, but that would require you to read which is of course a challenge for you.

      • aldol11

        i learnt long time ago that you can’t fix stupid. idiots believe what is convenient to support their narartive, not what is reality. ask iraq contractors vietnam vets ( green berets) what gun they’d rather have carried and you’ll find out that if they could get their hands on an ak , they would retire their m16/m4

        • No one

          “i learnt long time ago that you can’t fix stupid. idiots believe what is
          convenient to support their narartive, not what is reality.”

          You’re making a great case of leading by example here with your posting.

          ….Unless your self awareness really IS that bad and you can’t actually see how dumb you sound right now. Then again you can’t even spell, capitalize or punctuate correctly so….

          “ask iraq contractors vietnam vets ( green berets) what gun they’d
          rather have carried and you’ll find out that if they could get their
          hands on an ak , they would retire their m16/m4”

          I used to work with retired veterans pretty much all the time, and I love all you AK fanboys who are stuck in the past who think it’s actually a better platform than the AR-15 when it isn’t and to “Go ask veterans!” when you can’t actually support an argument on your own. (speaking of believing what’s convenient and not reality.) Out of working with many dozen veterans from nearly every war since WW2, never once did I hear “I would’ve taken an AK over my M16/M4 any day!”

          Also, the sheer irony that you think the M16 was made to be “Cheaper, not better” but list the AK-47 as a supposed example of some expensive masterpiece is laughable. The AK is a good design, but the fact you think the AR-10/15 would’ve been easy or cheap to design and produce back in early 50s-60s when working with aluminum and polymer in firearms was incredibly expensive and required experts in material design to work with. Versus the AK which was a milled, later stamped steel and wood design that fired a round with terrible wounding effects and the long range ballistics of a potato (which didn’t really matter since the AK had terrible sights for the time) until the 5.45x39mm round came out.

          Yeah, CLEARLY the M16 was designed to be the cheaper gun in this scenario, get out of here, you are completely, incredibly clueless and can’t prove a word you say or just have your own words come back to smack you in the face.

          • aldol11
          • No one

            No one cares what some hunting site thinks are good against deer. (and most hunters vastly overestimate the caliber “needed” to take down small-medium game anyway like they’re hunting Cape Buffalo or Rhino) and even if that was somehow relevant to what works in warfare, That doesn’t change the fact that no one has ever issued a rifle chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum as a standard issue frontline rifle ever.

            Either prove a point or stop wasting people’s time with this garbage.

          • aldol11

            “well if it’s not good for a deer, it’s not good for a man ” i think col. townsend said that or something to that effect.

          • aldol11

            ok you keep your 223’s i keep my 308’s, 300 win mags and 7.62×39’s

          • No one

            I didn’t realize any country ever used .300 Winchester Magnum in a standard issue frontline rifle, do tell! unless you really want to have a sniper’s contest and I can pull out my M300 that has both a .408 and .375 barrel set!

            Also, yes, please take 7.62x39mm in a fight against a nation using 5.56x45mm rifles and rage when you lose horribly in both ammunition capacity and effective range. (It’s almost like there’s a reason the 2 biggest users of 7.62x39mm, Russia and China dropped it for SCHV rounds of their own in 1974 and 1987 respectively and many other nations have adopted those rounds afterwards over formerly using 7.62x39mm, It’s almost like 7.62x39mm is complete garbage or something!) even using 7.62x51mm over an SCHV round is going to get you thrown in the dumpster in an actual real world firefight.

          • aldol11

            chris kyle did use 300 wm
            i don’t mean to get you two guys enraged.
            it is my opinion that the 223 is a light weight round with poor performance at close range as well as at long range. It is not really good at anything. on top of that the platform that was implemented for it has great flaws again relating to cost control: no piston (and by then the short stroke piston of the sks had already shown its reliability ), another problem is the magazines . if you do not baby them, you damage the lips and then they misfeed., also i can think of the stock : if you want to aim throught he iron sights you have to keep the buttstock at the top of your shoulder instead of lower in a more natural posture
            other than that the m4 is a great range gun with low recoil and cheap ammo.
            nice talking to you though

          • No one

            ……

            “standard issue frontline rifle”

            Words mean things!

          • AC97

            “chris kyle did use 300 wm”

            .300 Win Mag is NOT a good general issue cartridge, regardless of what morons like you believe.

          • aldol11

            never said or believed that it was. the government would never pick it , perhaps because it’s so good

          • Kivaari

            No, but it is getting wide spread use in the sniper ranks. Kyle did use the M24 in .300 WM. Just like they are using some .338 Lapua rifles.
            There is no way it would be a “service rifle” for issue to infantry. The M4 is a great carbine.

          • I’ve never had a problem using 5.56mm on deer, but maybe you do need something bigger. 🙂

          • aldol11

            Nate: what do you think is the percentage of deer hunters that use 223?

          • Kivaari

            Many states outlawed it when AR15 and Mini 14s came on scene. It just upset the old codgers serving on game commissions. I dealt with some of them when the Mini 14 came on scene and they were just furious that such rifles were sold to the public.

          • aldol11

            i need to get back to work now, it has been nice talking to some gun lovers, though you guys need to brush up on external ballistics a bit 🙂

          • No one

            How is it possible to completely lack any sense of self awareness at all?

            It’s really incredible.

          • aldol11

            i try my best

          • I have a pretty good idea what percentage of deer hunters use enormous magnums, so I am not really worried about it. 🙂

          • aldol11

            size does matter

          • Don Ward

            So you’re keeping all of those .30 caliber rounds and yet you don’t even bring up the one that has killed more deer than all of the rest put together combined. And that’s the 30-30.
            SAD!
            Clearly, the military needs to adopt the Thuddy-Thuddy since it has killed hundreds of millions of deer.

          • aldol11

            i have a marlin 336 in 3030

        • Uniform223

          “i learnt long time ago that you can’t fix stupid.”

          > yet here you are…

          Your mental capabilities is proof that evolution is a lie.

          • aldol11

            google: 10 Best Deer Cartridges of All Time
            223 is not even closely good for deer, let alone men that want to kill you. it may be great at the range, if you do not have a misfeed from the flimsy magazine lips that is

          • No one

            Yet another “Wars are fought against animals!” fallacy.

            Then again, most hunters think you need the latest super magnum to take down a small deer so their opinions on military matters should count about “not at all.”

          • Kivaari

            Don’t tell that to all the poachers that used .22 LR.

          • No one

            Actually, since you brilliantly got you own post moderated and I had it saved in another window, let me just copy paste my response to that one.

            Oh, the ever so classic “wars are fought against animals!” fallacy.

            Yeah,you’re literally yet another clueless reformist who has zero clue what you’re talking about regarding anything at all and who pulls the class line of “any decision I don’t agree with is just politics!”

            (….Except for the part where the only Politics between the M14 vs the M16 and the FAL before it for that matter was a massive amount of corruption in the Army to rig the M14s test results to look better which got discovered.) But M14 fanboys don’t like to talk about “those” politics!

            Man,I wish all the people who have died to 5.56x45mm gunfire, a swell as 5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm export customers could’ve been told they weren’t hit something that meets the minimum requirements to kill them! They could’ve just come back to life and walked away to live another day!

            ……Oh wait, it doesn’t work that way at all? I guess this is why no one listens to hunters on matters of combat. and I’m pretty sure I’ll forget about a thousand times more about firearms then you’ll ever even know so, have fun with that one.

          • aldol11

            i keep my 30 cals :308’s 30.06’s 300 WM’s and 7.62×39’s and even a pps 7.62×25 i have no need for a 223

          • No one

            Oh cool, you have no need for a .223 and therefore 5.56mm was a horrible mistake and only you know the truth because you hunt deer!

            It’s almost like you’re backpedaling after starting an argument you can’t win or something!

          • Kivaari

            But you keep the under-performing 7.62x39mm and the 7.62x25mm, really?

          • aldol11

            i keep 2 at home with folding stocks and 500 or so rounds in stick and drum mags

          • Kivaari

            Odd I have found the M16/AR15 based rifles to not have the issues you write about. The inadequate bullet weight has proven not to be an issue. The DI gas system isn’t an issue except for the lazy. The in-line stock is an advantage. The magazines work if you use good magazines. Especially if you use late generation (no-tilt followers) or Pmags. Even with older magazines, circa 1982-83, our M16A1 rifles functioned quite well. The only real issue was rough handling which damages stock furniture. The plastics used on the M16A2 and newer guns is superior plastic.

          • aldol11

            you can make anything work if you are good , witness the gun oswald used.
            i have poor eyes and a the bigger the bang the better…. to a point. 338 is the max recoil i can take nowadays without flinching

          • Kivaari

            Who cares what the best 10 deer cartridges are. That has nothing to do with combat rifles and carbines. Just about anything bigger than a .22 LR poachers special to a .458 Lott makes for a deer rifle. Old things like .30-30, 30-40, .303, .270, .308. .30-06 are all fine deer rounds. Even good for elk in steady hands.

          • aldol11

            you mkae my point you need 150 gr bullets

          • No one

            That must be why one of of, if not the top 3 calibers for deer and other small-medium game currently used (it may have falled from top spot, but I would put money on it still being top 3.) Is .243 Winchester which is not only not 6.5mm in diameter, but caps out on bullet weights around 115gr like most 6mm caliber centerfire rifle cartridges!

            This also means that Caldwell was clearly Lying when he was consistently killing large Tigers in China from the 1910s to 1920s which are far larger than deep using a rifle chambered in .22 Imp

            I guess it was decided to neck down .308 because they wanted a challenge from the superior .30 caliber or something.

            ….Or your metrics for whats “required” for deer and men are a complete lie and you’re not proving anything.

        • Joshua

          Really now?

        • Kivaari

          That is simply not true. Few Vietnam vets, even the elite troops, used the AK. Sure for fun and the photo to send home to the folks, but otherwise they packed mostly M16s of one kind or another. A major boost to the M16 adoption was the positive reports from the special operators that were testing the rifle. For the most part they loved the M16. Many had been packing M2 carbines since they were advising ARVN and CIDG who used them as well. The small lightweight and very lethal M16 was reported to be the “best weapon ever”.

    • Joshua

      Back when the AR-10 was developed it was anything but cheaper.

      It was designed to be lighter and more simple than other guns.

      But working with aircraft grade aluminum and polymers was space age stuff back in the 40s.

      That’s why Stoner was developing the AR-12 back then, before his patent to his operating system was sold.

      It would use stamped steel and wood, because that was cheaper and easier to make back then.

      • aldol11

        ask iraq and vietnam vets

        • No one

          LOL you sure proved him wrong!

          ….Wait, you don’t have any actual arguments do you?

          • aldol11

            no offense but if i have to explain why the m4 is an inferior gun to someone, that means that probably that someone does not know much about guns. but i will make a final effort.
            ask any hunter what bullet weight in grains or what caliber is barely adequate for deer and you’ll have your answer. the 223 is not even good for deer hunting let alone military engagements . 150gr and 6.5 are the minimum requirements for deer and man . then if you want to listen to a dc bureacrat ( robert mc namara) that wants to save money in gun and ammo and establishes engagement requirements that happen to fill his narartive then it is a different story.
            http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/caliber-deer-hunting/
            http://www.northamericanwhitetail.com/tactics/10-best-deer-cartridges-time/

          • Uniform223

            https://youtu.be/zFZYerL46jE

            Truly you are someone that is an SME about firearms and how they pertain to the military. Please enlighten the rest of us know nothing peons that have been brainwashed by years of false advertisement and disinformation. Show us the light of truth so that we may take and make it into gospel.

          • aldol11

            i have been trying, honestly over the years i bought half a dozen 223 and tried to find something good in one after another one, a few years ago i accepted the hard reality and sold all of them except one because i ‘ve got lots of ammo for it and because the recoil is so low that my wife likes to shoot it better that my bigger calibers.
            recapping the flaws:
            1 inadequate bullet weight
            2 maintenance of DI
            3 stock in line with barrel: hard to shoulder properly
            4 flimsy magazines that are easily damaged and then misfeed

            recappig the plusses:
            1 cheap ammo
            2 low recoil
            3 light weight

          • Uniform223
          • aldol11

            rocket raccoon was the best
            thank you for the laughs

        • Kivaari

          TFB published a report from the Army that covered interivews with actual combat vets that fired their weapon in combat in the SWA theater. The positive feed back was over 80% of the people approved of the M4 carbine. I suspect those that didn’t like it were the hardcore 7.62 lovers and those that couldn’t shoot worth a damn.

      • aldol11

        cheaper than the m14

        • No one

          And yet better in every way possible.

          Odd.

          • aldol11

            except stopping men, you need to shoot them 3 or 4 times with a 223 and once with the 308

          • No one

            Except for the fact that M193 and M855 are far more lethal to men than the M80 “Icepick wonder” round could ever hope to be.

            Life isn’t a video game, there is no HP pools balanced by devs who think “Bigger bullet = better!”, try to gain more knowledge on the subject than your average Call of Duty player.

          • Kivaari

            The M80 does make simple wound channels. They are often no different than 9mm or .45 ball ammo.

          • Warren Ellis

            Weren’t M80 rounds from the US noted to have thick enough walls that they didn’t fragment well whereas West German M80 equivalents had thin enough walls that the bullets fragmented well once they got inside you/

          • CommonSense23

            There is evidence supporting that there were two slightly different M80 rounds with one fragmenting significantly better than the other.

          • Kivaari

            I read the Yugoslavian report and then material about it in Wound Ballistics (IWBA). I only remember the comparison of “M80” and the FN and German ammuntion. I don’t remember reading about two types of USA manufactured M80. Could be true.

          • Kivaari

            Very true. MOST western European 7.62mm NATO ammo had a very thin jacket. When the Yugoslavs did studies they made a big deal out of how destructive the evil western powers were for using such thin jackets. The US ammo was 0.08mm compared to 0.05mm thick. The M80 poked holes.

    • Uniform223

      “DI is a maintenance nightmare”

      > oh no, taking 5 or even 10 minutes out of your day just to clean it is a nightmare.

      All joking aside, anyone who still believes or clings to that is a *blank*-tard in my book. When i got out of the cluster-f parade/circus; I learned very quickly that real weapons maintenance is parts inspection. It doesnt matter if you have a short stroke piston uber wonder-waffe or a long stroke piston commie club. If a part is defunked, IT WON’T WORK *period*

      I have a used Colt 6920 and it already well used and old before it got to me at a discounted bargain you’re my best bud bro-mance price. Still runs like a champ. Even better ever since I dropped in a new buffer assembly, gas rings, and extraction spring. I still haven’t cleaned her after my last trip to the range and before that. She still fires and functions just fine, she likes it dirty.

      • aldol11

        your talking about range. i am talking about killing

        • Uniform223

          Lmao!

          Playing in some abandoned warehouse with you guns that shoot plastic pellets on the weekends or playing CoD doesn’t give you experience. Nice try though.

        • No one

          Have you ever even killed a man? I have, and it doesn’t go anything like you think it does.

          Sorry to tell you this….yet again.

        • Uniform223

          You can kill a man with a butter knife and your left thumb if you’re so inclined… what point are you trying to make? Does the business of shoveling and pushing a wheelbarrow full of fresh male bovine excrement pay well?

    • Kivaari

      You can’t give up on the 1965 DI powder issues can you? Like so many people that hate the M16, they live in the past and don’t understand how good the rifle is today.

      • aldol11

        it’s more than that, i shoot my ak’s all afternoon and then leave in the safe for 2 months before i shoot them again i never cleaned them in 10 years ( i got them before obama) .
        i have over 100 guns and i do not clean them except the few handgun that i carry .the ar’s gummed up right away don’t know for sure but less than a 1,000 rounds shot over a mont or so and all of them started misfeeding or failing to eject, this has NEVER happened to em with an ak or sks. i had it happen with expensive benelli 300wsm and other =expensive semi auto, both at the range and on the hunt. Not a nice feeling having to hope the gun is going to do what it is supposd to do.

        • CommonSense23

          This is one of the stupidest things I have read. A thousands rounds isn’t going to gunk up a AR15.

        • Kivaari

          That is a really stupid thing to do.

  • iksnilol

    Somebody is in *troooouble*

    • Joshua

      Nah, the Marine corps attempted to back door a new service rifle in so they could be special.

      Now it’s coming back to bite them.

      • iksnilol

        Yeah, that kinda sounds lile trouble to me.

        • Joshua

          Of which I will enjoy.

          It’ll be interesting to see where this all leads.

          The Corps is to small IMO, for Congress to agree with.

          The Army spear heads the majority of our militaries procurement in guns and ammunition.

          This means things likely will go bad for the Marine Corps.

      • n0truscotsman

        They will deserve every bit of it.

  • Nicks87

    So is he saying insurgents are getting a hold of Level IV body armor “at an alarming rate”? Because I’m pretty sure M855 will punch through anything less. If this is true then the military needs to adapt their rifles to the new cartridge technology instead of vice versa. Or time to move forward with a new rifle I think.

    • Joshua

      No but we have been seeing more Level III steel armor in use.

    • No one

      Level III is specifically rated to stop M855 and M80 and does so just fine.

      • Nicks87

        Thanks for the correction but I think my point still stands. Projectile vs. Armor, the saga continues. Plus I think the pieces are already in place, as in: 6.5mm, piston operated, modularity, etc.

  • Anonymoose

    Maybe it’s time for an M855A2, or maybe a SLAP round with a plastic-covered tip.

    • Jared Vynn

      Maybe Hornady’s ELD tip?

      • El Duderino

        I vote for Sublime’s Mushroom Tip.

  • Risto Kantonen

    Based on what i can gather, the rifle is most likely being used outside its original design parameters. It would be unrealistic to not expect any problems in a situation like that, especially when were talking about a critical variable such as ammunition. And if i’ve understood things correctly, the M855A1 round differs from the M855 round in multiple ways.

  • Uniform223

    NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!

    It is an H&K weapon. It’s parts are forged by ancient Germanic gods and assembled in a mythical forest by magical elves and nymphs. This is all a lie!

  • zaknot18

    does the new 6.5mm 125 grain cased telescoped round defeat armor better than the .308? I think it would because it is lighter, faster, and ha smaller frontal area.

    • Renato H M de Oliveira

      Still not enough to beat Level IV without tungsten.
      Even tungsten pills in 7.62 NATO cannot reliably do the trick past 150 m. Equivalent pills in 300 WM won’t do the trick past 300 m (ranges on top of my head, maybe I’m wrong, but won’t be very longer and possibly shorter).
      There have been some heated online debates on the subject of how to better deal with an enemy employing advanced body armour en masse.
      General consensus is that IWs are a poor choice for GIs dealing with advanced body armour.
      To reliably defeat them at reasonable ranges demand tungsten pills fired from calibers too powerful for IWs. And, in any case, there’s simply not enough tungsten worldwide for prolonged use as the main load.
      A better pick would be more HE and thermobarics.
      The BEST pick would be to have decent rules of engagement and bigger weapons more quickly delivering fire support.

      • Risto Kantonen

        Indeed, a Finnish Defence Forces officer mentioned in one of the FDF podcasts on youtube something along the lines of: In modern conflicts, indirect fire from artillery and support from airstrikes count for ~80% of losses.

        I think it might have been this podcast, although the podcast is in finnish and there are no subtitles, so it’s not that useful for those that don’t understand finnish: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsw8pFT9CyA

      • Risto Kantonen

        I wrote a reply with a link to an FDF podcast, which it seems wasn’t approved by a moderator based on the fact that i can’t see it pending approval.

        So here’s a translation of the relevant portion of that podcast, with timestamps but without the link to the source. Here’s hoping that this comment will be approved.

        Tommi Kangasmaa, the host of the Podcast, 2:51-3:02

        Well, what is the role of artillery on today’s battlefield?
        How could you describe, um, how artillery participates in the battle today?

        Colonel Pasi Virtanen, 3:02-3:28

        Well, artillery traditionally has a very significant role in causing casualties and affecting the enemy outside of the effective range of direct fire weapons. And this hasn’t really changed over the years and for example in the conflict in Ukraine we can state that according to studies, 85% of all losses are still produced with artillery.

        Tommi Kangasmaa, 3:28-3:51

        I remember reading about Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, it indeed seems that artillery is the most effective in destroying and crippling. If you think back to the role of artillery in WW2 and compare it to this day, has this changed in any way or are there any differences?

        Colonel Pasi Virtanen, 3:51-4:45

        The principles of effect are still the same, but maybe the operating procedures in the firing position and in fire control have changed a
        little. But the basic principles are very similar, meaning that you look to
        affect the kind of enemy targets that would reduce the combat effectiveness of the enemy forces the most, and artillery excellent tool for that. Large countries of course have air to ground capabilities, meaning capability related to immediate combat support, so they can use attack aircrafts for example. For Finland this kind of possibility is very limited and for that reason we have invested in strong artillery with which we can affect on the enemy on a very large area.

        • Renato H M de Oliveira

          Great find, thanks for sharing.
          That’s exactly the sort of thing that was said – artillery and air support are far, far more effective than small arms.
          Once you set your requirements on defeating advanced body armour (Level IV and beyond) at any reasonable distances (say, over 100 m), you’ll need tungsten projectiles of considerable power, 7.62 NATO and beyond.
          Such calibers, needless to say, demand big and heavy weapons to be somewhat controllable, either in full auto or fast semiauto (sometimes there is little difference between them). The fact that soldiers already are carrying far more weight than they should makes this a bad idea.
          Even then, there’s simply not enough tungsten worldwide for making small arms ammo for a war, not to mention that tungsten is very expensive for regular small arms usage.
          And even if you did manage to produce a controllable assault rifle in a powerful caliber and enough ammo for your entire army – it would matter little.
          As the video you mentioned clearly shows, small arms are just a small part of the killing power of modern armies. You need tens of thousands of bullets to kill a single enemy, and we’re not even including body armour in the equation, which could easily put the figure in the hundreds of thousands of bullets per kill.
          So why all the talking on advanced bullets? Simply put, the one thing that in my opinion is a very serious one: political correctness (point me to something political AND correct, and you deserve a medal!)
          Killing enemies, and especially overwhelmingly defeating an enemy, isn’t nice in our days. So instead of giving the troops the fire support they need (and deserve). Sending tanks, for example, hurts the thinner-than-air skins of snowflakes, libtards and millennials, and these crybabies indeed cry very loud.
          PoLIEticians only think about ONE thing: the next elections. If they feel that sending tanks and artillery, or worse, sending but refraining to use them, will be bad for the elections, they will only send troops with rifles do foot patrols. That is basically what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq: stupid rules of engagement (ROEs) significantly restricted the use of artillery and heavy armour, as well as the use of air power. The fact that the rats deliberately chose to hide amidst the civilian population further restricted the usage of the big guns.
          Such restrictive ROEs meant that many firefights had to be solved solely with small arms. This situation quickly showed the inadequacy of the 5.56 NATO for such a scenario.
          A quick explanation here – 5.56 NATO isn’t ineffective. It was conceived for a different usage, that is, only for sub-300 m firefights against unarmoured enemies, where heavy arms would be unavailable due to the danger of fratricide. In such a scenario, 5.56 NATO can be very deadly.
          Increasing the foot soldiers’ firepower isn’t the answer. Of course, if you can do that without further overburdening their loads, then by all means go for it; getting this done is no trivial task.
          One intermediate solution is to give your troops some HE and thermobarics, but again be very careful with soldier load.
          If you are to really solve the problem, then:
          a) don’t go to war unless you’re willing to follow ROEs that give your troops relatively easy access to the big guns (do not confuse better ROEs with trigger happiness);
          b) you’d better also not go to war if you can’t stomach the idea that winning with 300 casualties in a single month is much, much better (in all aspects) than winning with 1 casualty/day for 1 year, even with the bad publicity it causes;
          c) also, don’t go to war with unrealistic and/or vague objectives. Your ojectives should be as clear-cut as possible, and also as militarily realistic as possible. Resist the temptations of grandiosity, as you’re not the 4th member of The Holy Trinity;
          d) once you stomach a) and b), then go to war, and unleash your armed forces as violently as you can, to end it as quickly as you can, or to weaken the enemy as much as you can.
          As our current crop of poLIEticians seem clearly unable to grasp these points, we’ve seen very poor outcomes in recent military campaigns.

  • NewMan

    Minor issue. H&K is already working on an improved version of the M27. The 416A5 fired many thousands of M855A1 without any issues.

    • mosinman

      And it’s available for the low price of 5k per unit!

      • AC97

        Ah, the Ermahgerd HK Effect, don’t you love it?

        • mosinman

          yes i love footing the bill for HK weapons

    • No one

      But everything H&K makes is already perfect, how can youy make something more perfect?!

  • valorius

    US Military motto: It’s not broke- LET’S FIX IT!

    • Renato H M de Oliveira

      Let’s fix it until it breaks! FIFY

  • Gun Fu Guru

    As I have said all along: M855A1 is ahead of its time. It really needs a brand new weapon design that is specifically made for that round.

    • No one

      Or just a PMAG in an M4A1 and it works fine.

      Brand new weapon indeed.

      • mig1nc

        I’ll be interested to see what the SOCOM mid-length gas system tests results are with M855A1. Lower gas port pressure could help a lot.

        Get the feed ramps right and that might be the ticket.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        Even in an M4, the barrel life is reduced because of the pressure.

  • The_Champ

    I generally enjoy TFB comments section, but dang anything about the current US service is fatiguing to read. These articles get far more comments than anything else and are usually quite instructive on dangers of getting emotionally attached to inanimate objects lol.

  • adverse4

    By the time they figure it out we’ll all be dead from AK rounds.

  • Rnasser Rnasser

    I suspect if the M855A1 pressure is backed down a littte, most problems will disappear and loss of performance will be neglibigle…

  • John

    1. Issue a high-capacity magazine that employs the same modified regular magazines. I’ll bet Magpul has one.

    2. Whatever else, it’s the U.S. Marine Corps. Supplying them with machine guns is a major coup. Build a specific upper piston receiver for machine gun use and pop it in. The 416 was supposed to be modular anyway.

  • Gaspar Cruz III

    A solution that should be considered is reverting back to the use of the 7.62/.308 round on an AR10 type platform. I have seen extremely well made and light AR10 pattern rifles that shot very well. I know there are ammo weight issues but they’ll get over it.

    • No one

      This doesn’t actually solve anything related to this issue at all, and 5.56mm is overall a better choice as a general issue frontline cartridge. and if you honestly think soldiers should just “get over” ammo weight issues, be sure to tell that to all the ones who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with permanent knee and spinal damage due to overburdened loadout weights that they just need to “get over” weight issues.

      Lastly, pro tip, a massive majority of “AR-10 pattern” rifles aren’t AR-10 pattern, they’re just scaled up AR-15s (Yes, there’s a difference.)

    • FF

      Same supersonic range, same trajectory, WORSE Point blank range. DOUBLE the ammo weight = half the rounds to carry = TOTAL fire superority LOSS.

      Over 3times the recoil, -10rounds per mag, larger weapon for the same barrel lenght/ shorter barrel for the same lenght.

      And heavier for no good reason because the bolt carrier etc weights more…

      CT will come and totally rek any 7.62×51

  • Podsenkowski

    KTW bullets have a Teflon coating….