Home

6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62

Posted By: user52165

6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 05:47 PM

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...ire-this-more-accurate-and-deadly-round/
Posted By: CT8

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 06:12 PM

The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.
Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.


Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!

The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.
Posted By: BMWTurboDzl

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 06:52 PM

err...and the rest of NATO?

I wonder if the COD fanboys are getting squeamish about being able to resell their .223/556
Posted By: Reddy45

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 07:05 PM

.223/5.56 isn't going anywhere, and neither is 7.62.
Posted By: wdn

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 07:19 PM

The United States Army have been saying the same thing for the past 30 years. I could not even count all the "future infantry weapons" DoD has spent large on and later abandoned.
Posted By: wdn

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 07:26 PM

XM29 OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) not to be confused with Advanced Individual Combat Weapon, and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

Not to be confused with Next Generation Squad Weapon.
Posted By: Timo325

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 08:00 PM

This is old news, but doesn't seem so here.

This is not the OICW program, and this is a relatively "cheap" program for the change that it is going to make. I'm including logistics chains, etc..

This program is likely going to happen.

Why?

Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
Posted By: Linctex

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Reddy45
.223/5.56 isn't going anywhere, and neither is 7.62.


I keep waiting for both to come back down to a $99 per 1000 rnds - wouldn't that be nice again.
Posted By: maxdustington

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Timo325

Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
I thought the M855A1 improved performance significantly, having more penetration than 7.62 M80 at longer ranges. Keep in mind the 556 was designed for AR-15s, it is good that they design a cartridge and weapons together. That might have been the problem in the past, changing calibers is not so drastic if you are introducing a new gun with it.
Posted By: SubieRubyRoo

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 08:52 PM

If we had more of these, we wouldn't be talking about armor-penetrating capabilities...
Posted By: Timo325

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/09/18 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by maxdustington
Originally Posted by Timo325

Because we are having problems with M855 and others penetrating body armor. This is a deficiency that absolutely needs a solution for our warfighters. I believe most would agree, that they deserve this change.
I thought the M855A1 improved performance significantly, having more penetration than 7.62 M80 at longer ranges. Keep in mind the 556 was designed for AR-15s, it is good that they design a cartridge and weapons together. That might have been the problem in the past, changing calibers is not so drastic if you are introducing a new gun with it.


I will only speak to what I know is open source, and to that I will add the credible statement below:

Gen. Mark Milley testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the service's current M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round will not defeat enemy body armor plates similar to the U.S. military-issue rifle plates such as the Enhanced Small Arms Protective Insert, or ESAPI.
Posted By: CT8

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.


Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!

The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.

The caliber was an issue back in 1962 !!!
Posted By: CT8

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted by CT8
The tax payers pocket is truly bottomless.


Of course, because our soldiers and Marines don't deserve anything developed in the last 50 years. In fact, think of the savings in ammunition costs if we went back to muskets!

The total cost of this program will be less than the rounding error of the cost of a squadron of F-35s.

The caliber was an issue back in 1962 !!! We are looking at a similar to a 7.62x39 ish performance, well a bit better.
Posted By: CT8

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
If we had more of these, we wouldn't be talking about armor-penetrating capabilities...
Kinda heavy to tote.
Posted By: SubieRubyRoo

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 04:07 AM

Well, I meant include more Hummers as well to take them around... It's always amazed me at how exposed the roof gunner is; you'd think there could be some kind of protective metal "hood" to enclose the turret with bulletproof windows or something. But then again, I wasn't Infantry.
Posted By: NateDN10

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 09:37 AM

I wish the article had more information on the round itself. It sounds like this is traditional ammunition, not caseless?
Posted By: bulwnkl

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 07:17 PM

You can make lots of ammunition ‘caseless,’ and the article only cited a caliber (6.8mm), not a specific cartridge (i.e. 6.8 SPC). Assuming it _is the 6.8spc, though, that ammunition has normally been of conventional construction.

I struggle to understand how a relatively stubby (short, low-SD) .27-cal bullet moving considerably slower than a .223/5.56 bullet is thought to penetrate armor better than the .223/5.56 itself. If bullet construction is significantly different, that’s fine but then one could as easily adopt alternate bullet construction for the 5.56.

A larger-diameter bullet makes bigger holes in soft targets, and so is likely to have better ‘knock-down’ than a .22-cal on _un_armored personnel, but somebody’s gonna have to show me the data before I buy into the notion of superior armor penetration.
Posted By: NateDN10

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 09:29 PM

This article (https://www.janes.com/article/83596...for-6-8-mm-next-generation-squad-weapons) says that it's a brand new cartridge (not 6.8SPC) but doesn't give any information on the round itself.
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 10:44 PM

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.
Posted By: wdn

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/10/18 11:40 PM

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.
Posted By: Astro14

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 01:32 AM

I’ll believe it (new cartridge) when I see it.
Posted By: user52165

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 07:41 AM

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.
Posted By: hatt

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Astro14
I’ll believe it (new cartridge) when I see it.

This. It's not happening.
Posted By: hatt

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 12:34 PM

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.
Posted By: JohnnyJohnson

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 02:27 PM

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.

Posted By: hatt

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 02:52 PM

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.
Posted By: user52165

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 06:31 PM

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.
Posted By: Kamele0N

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/11/18 10:53 PM

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)...
Posted By: hatt

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/12/18 12:08 AM

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.
Posted By: hatt

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/12/18 03:10 PM

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.
Posted By: NateDN10

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/12/18 10:11 PM

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.
Posted By: wdn

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/12/18 11:35 PM

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.
Posted By: AMC

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/13/18 02:08 AM

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.
Posted By: umungus1122

Re: 6.8mm to Replace Some 5.56 and 7.62 - 10/14/18 10:10 PM

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.
© 2019 Bob Is The Oil Guy