TexasCHLforum.com

crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:37 pm

crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.

Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.

Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.

Liberty wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 7:04 am

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:37 pm

crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.

Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.

Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.

Not just the ammo but the gun itself. While the military is strong on tradition, maybe they actually learned something from the early introductions of the m14 and m16. Combat testing a weapons system is a great way of wringing the bugs out of things but it can come at the cost of real lives. Bringing the weapons into the system slowly and let the troops learn the strengths and idiosyncracies. Tweak the issues.

No gun is best for all situatations. Sometimes an M4 might be the perfect weapon yet other times not so much.

jason812 wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:07 pm The articles never mentioned the case just the 6.8mm projectile. Something along the lines of a 277 Wolverine would only require a new barrel if upgrading current M4's. Something similar to that would make the most sense, but we are talking about the government so don't expect their decision to make sense.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:37 pm

crazy2medic wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:59 pm My memory tells me the 6.8spc was suppose to replace the 5.56 nato but military turned it down because of warehouses full of 5.56 ammuntion!

There may well have been other reasons too. For instance, with a standard bullet weight of 110 grains (at the light end for 6.8 SOC), each round of 6.8 will weigh roughly twice the weight of of M193 ball, and just a little less than twice the weight of a round of M855....unless .mil standardizes on the 120 grain bullet, which just makes the weight penalty worse. Of course this means that an individual soldier can only carry half as much ammo as with 5.56 NATO. I could easily be wrong, but I’ll bet that will play a big part in whether or not 6.8 SPC (or something like it) will ever make it down to the level of the individual infantryman's rifle/carbine.

Another possibility, given the amount of 5.56 NATO ammo on hand, is that maybe 5.56 weapons will become the new "M1 Carbine" for service troops, while the 6.8 weapon becomes the "M1 Garand" for combat infantrymen.

Either way, I don’t think that 5.56 NATO is going to go away all that quickly.

Jago668 wrote: Sun Jul 14, 2019 8:19 pm It's the 6.8 spc. It was talked about awhile back in a few places. As far as rifles, you'd need barrels and bolts. Though I suspect they'd want to just buy all new rifles. I don't know if it's actually going to happen, I like the round so would be all for the massive production and spillover into civilian markets. Plus if they decided to dump the surplus of 5.56.

Last year’s announcement that the 6.5 Creedmoor will soon replace the familiar 7.62 NATO in many of the rifles shouldered by USSOCOM precision marksmen did little to quash the rumor. The ballistic advantages it offers special forces are also well-documented.