Sure doesn't seem the light infantry is getting any lighter even with new technology. Seems speed will be affected as well.I don't think so. A standard basic load is 210 rounds and we ALWAYS carried far more because we knew it would be used pretty quick and resupply is usually either not possible or took way to long to reach us. Even the 240 gunners, bitching non stop by the way, would hump as much ammo as they could carry and still move. The SAW gunners did the same. Now, the government seems to think the Soldiers and Marines these days are pack mules, but a lot of that is pushed out by local commanders and Sergeants Major with their standardized "packing list"- the bane of every foot soldier in history. The new ammo will be heavy, but it just means that PT gets that much harder. The standard test for my unit going to Afghanistan was when the company could run 5-6 miles in full gear- body armor, weapons, ammo, water, MRE's, commo gear, helmets, everything we carried. If you could do that and everyone made it, you could reasonably assume that you were not going to die trying to climb those steep ass mountains with all your gear- the Taliban may kill you, but the patrol most likely will not.
I never served, but just going on everything i have read. I do know i can carry way more rounds of 556, than .308, at least three times more. Only thing worse than shooting a puny round is running out of rounds. I respect you for your service, but unless you humped the jungles of viet nam, or deserts of itaq, or mountains of afghanistan, you have no more experience than me.regardless, thank you for your service, i owe you a steak dinner.I would have to disagree with this statement. The 5.56mm round was and is, borderline effective in combat- thats been proven too many times to count. No, you're not trying to wound the other guy. That is some BS public relations statement, nothing more. The reduction of weight sought when trading off the 7.62x51 (308) was also to increase maneuverability in close confine jungles where a standard length battle rifle was more of a hindrance than a help- so the change to the M16. This is 1960's tech/thought process we are talking here. There were no plate carriers with ballistic plates, the Nam issue flak jacket was just about worthless against bullets, it was for shrapnel protection and then was borderline. Standard Army and Marine doctrine is you aim center mass- to kill, not wound. With the advent of mass produced body armor, insurgents all hopped up on drugs, the 5.56mm just does not do the job- trust me been there done that. Remember, that statement about removing wounded from the battlefield and reducing the combat effectiveness of the enemy was created when the standing doctrine was based on a set piece battlefield, that really no longer exists. We have not fought a uniformed, standing military since parts of the Viet Nam war, but really since Korea- so say 50 years ago. Why do you think the Rangers asked the ARL/MTU to come up with a better round after the battle for Mogadishu? The skinny's would not go down and stay down because they were all jacked up on kat. That request became the 458 SOCOM- it puts them down, right there and they tend not to keep fighting or living. Everyone has been asking for a heavier round for decades. Just because the USA bullied NATO into adopting the 5.56mm does not mean it was the best for the job. Nobody but the US wanted that round because they saw it's problems. The US got that round because of strong lobbyists and the good ol boys club in the DOD procurement office, then shoved it down NATO's throat- hell NATO did not really want the 7.62x51. Even the Army's own research labs were on the fence over how effective it was. But again, 1960's tech with 1960's powder, bullets, manufacturing processes- cutting edge for the times but antiquated in today's capabilities.
This new round may not be the best idea, but it sure beats the hell out of the weak 5.56mm and if you ask any line soldier who has actually been in combat if they want to keep a less effective caliber because it weighs less or recoils less, I will bet to a person they all say hell no- give me the biggest thing you have.
Don't mean to rant, but this is one of the things I pushed and pushed for when I was in uniform and while I was a contractor. I want the best weapons and equipment we can get to keep my people safe and get them home in one piece.
In this case, I'm fairly certain that he has more experience than youI never served, but just going on everything i have read. I do know i can carry way more rounds of 556, than .308, at least three times more. Only thing worse than shooting a puny round is running out of rounds. I respect you for your service, but unless you humped the jungles of viet nam, or deserts of itaq, or mountains of afghanistan, you have no more experience than me.regardless, thank you for your service, i owe you a steak dinner.
Still enjoy 350 L. Just can’t get that darn 45-70 to run in my bolt action or AR.Its like arguing “best round for deer”. You have a few calibers that will do everything, constant new wildcat calibers are nothing magic. The all get the job done properly placed. Some have come out simply because they are adaptable to AR platforms, not because they are any kind of ballistic out performer of 100 year old rounds. The 45/70 is hard to beat for brush hunting whitetails, yet the come out with a .450 bushmaster.
.300 blackout, .350 legend, etc. It tickles me when somebody touts the killing power of these rounds, when there are 100+ year old rounds that are as good or better, yet fell out of favor, now they are ‘reinvented’