6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62

wdn

Messages
994
Location
NH
They just got through with outfitting the Marines with the M27 rifle as a replacement for the M4. Just 10 months ago they announced every Marine in a rifle squad will be outfitted with an M27. It is 5.56 milimeters just like the M4.
 
Messages
2,026
Location
CA
Thread starter
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
All the 6.8 is a good compromise between .223 and .308. Buying a new personal battle weapon I'd go with the 7.62 NATO round every time.
So we should reissue the M14, or a newer version, as a "personal battle weapon"? Or the M60 which I lugged around in Viet Nam? 23 lbs + 7 lbs per 100 ammo. The M240 is even heavier. 1969 9th Infantry Div. 2/60 Long An province. I spent nights on ambush patrols wishing for an M60 variant that fired the 5.56 round. Lugging 300-400 rounds, and every other grunt with a belt of 100 got real tired very quickly. I put it in the "suggestion box". When the SAW came out, I should have demanded a royalty. 1/2 the weight per round, and 2/3 the weight of the excellent M60 is very appealing to a 11Bravo. No stopping power? Lots of dead VC would not agree. 6.8 is dumb. Now 3 calibers to mess up the supply.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,039
Location
Florida
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
All the 6.8 is a good compromise between .223 and .308. Buying a new personal battle weapon I'd go with the 7.62 NATO round every time.
7.62 is also a compromise cartridge. For military use it's obsolete on every front.
 
Messages
6,427
Location
Wet side WA
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
All the 6.8 is a good compromise between .223 and .308. Buying a new personal battle weapon I'd go with the 7.62 NATO round every time.
7.62 is also a compromise cartridge. For military use it's obsolete on every front.
I will still kill over 500 yards and used by US snipers. In a good rifle with a good marksman its still formattable. The other two are effect at near 300. But then there are lots of people that have to depend on spray and pray shooting tactics. A .223 is great for urban warfare where most of the shooting is inside 300. The 6.8 just isn't enough improvement to justify it. Plan and simple we just don't have enough Kris Kyle's or Carlos Hathcock's in our armed forces.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,039
Location
Florida
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by hatt
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
All the 6.8 is a good compromise between .223 and .308. Buying a new personal battle weapon I'd go with the 7.62 NATO round every time.
7.62 is also a compromise cartridge. For military use it's obsolete on every front.
I will still kill over 500 yards and used by US snipers. In a good rifle with a good marksman its still formattable. The other two are effect at near 300. But then there are lots of people that have to depend on spray and pray shooting tactics. A .223 is great for urban warfare where most of the shooting is inside 300. The 6.8 just isn't enough improvement to justify it. Plan and simple we just don't have enough Kris Kyle's or Carlos Hathcock's in our armed forces.
7.62 is significantly inferior to something like 6.5 Creedmoor for military sniper use. And the 300 and 338 mags. It's really a poor choice in 2018. Heavy machine guns would also be better in .338 Norma. Even the .50 BMG is outdated these days. The .338 could cover most of it, like shooting Toyota pickups. If the .338 is too light you're going to want a cannon round vs a .50. I'll agree that the 6.8 assault rifle isn't a big enough leap over 5.56 to justify the transition.
 
Messages
2,026
Location
CA
Thread starter
Originally Posted by user52165
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
All the 6.8 is a good compromise between .223 and .308. Buying a new personal battle weapon I'd go with the 7.62 NATO round every time.
So we should reissue the M14, or a newer version, as a "personal battle weapon"? Or the M60 which I lugged around in Viet Nam? 23 lbs + 7 lbs per 100 ammo. The M240 is even heavier. 1969 9th Infantry Div. 2/60 Long An province. I spent nights on ambush patrols wishing for an M60 variant that fired the 5.56 round. Lugging 300-400 rounds, and every other grunt with a belt of 100 got real tired very quickly. I put it in the "suggestion box". When the SAW came out, I should have demanded a royalty. 1/2 the weight per round, and 2/3 the weight of the excellent M60 is very appealing to a 11Bravo. No stopping power? Lots of dead VC would not agree. 6.8 is dumb. Now 3 calibers to mess up the supply.
So back to my original question...................... exactly which 7.62 should we adopt as a "personal battle weapon"? Hopefully you will consider some of the issues above. Hint: GI's now carry much more "stuff" that is .............WEIGHT............. than ever.
 
Last edited:
Messages
3,433
Location
Slovenia EU
Originally Posted by user52165
So back to my original question...................... exactly which 7.62 should we adopt as a "personal battle weapon"? Hopefully you will consider some of the issues above. Hint: GI's now carry much more "stuff" that is .............WEIGHT............. than ever.
Regarding that you (as a nation) are constantly fighting against soviet 7.62.....I would recommend you to choose 7.62x39 smile But then your "warlords" would not make bussiness anymore with your forced .22lr round (5.56)...
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,039
Location
Florida
Originally Posted by Kamele0N
Originally Posted by user52165
So back to my original question...................... exactly which 7.62 should we adopt as a "personal battle weapon"? Hopefully you will consider some of the issues above. Hint: GI's now carry much more "stuff" that is .............WEIGHT............. than ever.
Regarding that you (as a nation) are constantly fighting against soviet 7.62.....I would recommend you to choose 7.62x39 smile But then your "warlords" would not make bussiness anymore with your forced .22lr round (5.56)...
Didn't the Russians switch to 5.45 about 40 years ago? Edit. I see you're likely talking about the fighters using whatever they have. With the insane amount of hardware we've left over there the past 15 years the M4 is probably going to be the gun of the future.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,039
Location
Florida
Originally Posted by CT8
ractice Thr cop swat teams around here use 308 shot through bolt or AR type rifles. I guess they shoot what is given to them. I'll talk to them at the range.
Police sharpshooting isn't a demanding ballistic application. The 308 is perfectly fine. When you get towards 4 digit range it starts to fall behind.
 
Messages
1,746
Location
Rochester, NY
Now I don't know exactly what the army is looking for, but I can't help but think that the .224 Valkyrie, or something along those lines, would be a better choice than something as large as a 6.8. It could be loaded on the light side with the existing M855A1 bullets for a relatively small increase in the amount of weight a soldier would have to carry, or with high BC 90 grain bullet for performance out to 1000 yards. Now I'm not saying they should just adopt .224 Valkyrie, I'm just saying if they really want a new cartridge that seems like a better compromise than something as large as a 6.8mm.
 

wdn

Messages
994
Location
NH
Every rifle round is a compromise. But they just issued Marines a new M4 replacement rifle, based on the HK416. Still 5.56, and they cost $3,000 each. Doesn't sound like 5.56 is going away any time soon if they just contracted a brand new rifle in the caliber.
 

AMC

Messages
957
Location
South Eastern, CT
I much prefer the 6.5 Grendel but this seems to be a step in the right direction either way. The Grendel is the ultimate compromise round for a combat rifle IMO. Better accuracy and trajectory than both 5.56 and 7.62, with only a slight increase in felt recoil, standard 30 round 5.56 sized mags hold 25 rounds of Grendel (only losing 5 rounds and much easier to keep count), the stopping power at short and long range is excellent and the cost of the ammunition is very reasonable. For civilian shooters, Wolf makes a 6.5 Grendel load for about the same price as a box of 5.56. About the only downside I could think of is that the Grendel really needs at least a 16 inch barrel and if it is going to be used for longer range shooting, 20 inches or longer is a must.
 
Messages
1,232
Location
PA
The 6.8 round that is being considered/ developed is a plastic cased telescoped round. It is way out(10+) years, probably more, IF it ever comes to fruition. Most likely the program will be scrapped at some point at the waste of many millions of $s. Conventional metal cased rounds will be with us for quite a while yet.
 
Top